Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780198297840
- eISBN:
- 9780191602016
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019829784X.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Parliamentary government is the most common way to organize delegation and accountability in contemporary democracies. Parliamentary government is a system of government in which the prime minister ...
More
Parliamentary government is the most common way to organize delegation and accountability in contemporary democracies. Parliamentary government is a system of government in which the prime minister and his or her cabinet are accountable to any majority of the members of parliament and can be voted out of office by the latter. Parliamentary democracy is a chain of delegation and accountability, from the voters to the ultimate policy makers, in which at each link (stage), a principal (in whom authority is originally) delegates to an agent, whom the principal has conditionally authorized to act in his or her name and place. The parliamentary chain of delegation is characterized by indirectness and singularity (i.e. at each link of the parliamentary chain, a single principal delegates to a single agent). At each stage of this chain, delegation problems (such as adverse selection and moral hazard) can occur.Less
Parliamentary government is the most common way to organize delegation and accountability in contemporary democracies. Parliamentary government is a system of government in which the prime minister and his or her cabinet are accountable to any majority of the members of parliament and can be voted out of office by the latter. Parliamentary democracy is a chain of delegation and accountability, from the voters to the ultimate policy makers, in which at each link (stage), a principal (in whom authority is originally) delegates to an agent, whom the principal has conditionally authorized to act in his or her name and place. The parliamentary chain of delegation is characterized by indirectness and singularity (i.e. at each link of the parliamentary chain, a single principal delegates to a single agent). At each stage of this chain, delegation problems (such as adverse selection and moral hazard) can occur.
Mette Elise Jolly
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199213078
- eISBN:
- 9780191707155
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213078.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union
This chapter discusses the possible roads to democratization of the EU that have been suggested in the literature by assessing eight different models of democracy such as federalism, parliamentary ...
More
This chapter discusses the possible roads to democratization of the EU that have been suggested in the literature by assessing eight different models of democracy such as federalism, parliamentary democracy, and majority rule. The ability of each model to encapsulate the EU system (descriptive strengths) is evaluated, then each is assessed for its ability to address the socio-psychological deficit of the union.Less
This chapter discusses the possible roads to democratization of the EU that have been suggested in the literature by assessing eight different models of democracy such as federalism, parliamentary democracy, and majority rule. The ability of each model to encapsulate the EU system (descriptive strengths) is evaluated, then each is assessed for its ability to address the socio-psychological deficit of the union.
Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780198297840
- eISBN:
- 9780191602016
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019829784X.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Parliamentary democracy is the most common way of organizing delegation and accountability in contemporary democracies. Yet knowledge of this type of regime has been incomplete and often ...
More
Parliamentary democracy is the most common way of organizing delegation and accountability in contemporary democracies. Yet knowledge of this type of regime has been incomplete and often unsystematic. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies offers new conceptual clarity on the topic. Taking principal-agent theory as its framework, the work illustrates how a variety of apparently unrelated representation issues can now be understood. This procedure allows scholarship to move well beyond what have previously been cloudy and confusing debates aimed at defining the virtues and perils of parliamentarism. This new empirical investigation includes all 17 West European parliamentary democracies. These countries are compared in a series of cross-national tables and figures, and 17 country chapters provide a wealth of information on four discrete stages in the delegation process: delegation from voters to parliamentary representatives, delegation from parliament to the prime minister and cabinet, delegation within the cabinet, and delegation from cabinet ministers to civil servants. Each chapter illustrates how political parties serve as bonding instruments, which align incentives and permit citizen control of the policy process. This is complemented by a consideration of external constraints, such as courts, central banks, corporatism, and the European Union, which can impinge on national-level democratic delegation. The concluding chapters go on to consider how well the problems of delegation and accountability are solved in these countries. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies provides an unprecedented guide to contemporary European parliamentary democracies. As democratic governance is transformed at the dawn of the twenty-first century, it illustrates the important challenges faced by the parliamentary democracies of Western Europe.Less
Parliamentary democracy is the most common way of organizing delegation and accountability in contemporary democracies. Yet knowledge of this type of regime has been incomplete and often unsystematic. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies offers new conceptual clarity on the topic. Taking principal-agent theory as its framework, the work illustrates how a variety of apparently unrelated representation issues can now be understood. This procedure allows scholarship to move well beyond what have previously been cloudy and confusing debates aimed at defining the virtues and perils of parliamentarism. This new empirical investigation includes all 17 West European parliamentary democracies. These countries are compared in a series of cross-national tables and figures, and 17 country chapters provide a wealth of information on four discrete stages in the delegation process: delegation from voters to parliamentary representatives, delegation from parliament to the prime minister and cabinet, delegation within the cabinet, and delegation from cabinet ministers to civil servants. Each chapter illustrates how political parties serve as bonding instruments, which align incentives and permit citizen control of the policy process. This is complemented by a consideration of external constraints, such as courts, central banks, corporatism, and the European Union, which can impinge on national-level democratic delegation. The concluding chapters go on to consider how well the problems of delegation and accountability are solved in these countries. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies provides an unprecedented guide to contemporary European parliamentary democracies. As democratic governance is transformed at the dawn of the twenty-first century, it illustrates the important challenges faced by the parliamentary democracies of Western Europe.
Erik O. Eriksen
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199572519
- eISBN:
- 9780191722400
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572519.003.0010
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union, Democratization
This last chapter addresses the puzzle of why parliamentary democracy has become the legitimacy standard for the EU when there is no demos. We witness a development from a situation in which ...
More
This last chapter addresses the puzzle of why parliamentary democracy has become the legitimacy standard for the EU when there is no demos. We witness a development from a situation in which democracy served as a guiding norm for national systems only, to one where democracy has become an increasingly relevant standard also for evaluating the EU. Following its empowerment, the European Parliament, together with national parliaments, is part of a European multi‐level parliamentary field. But why has the reform process taken the form of support for a parliamentarian model of representative democracy when central conditions for it to work properly are not in place? The solution to the puzzle is sought in the normative thrust of the parliamentary principle as the main embodiment of popular rule. But the lingering question is whether there can be democracy based on an empowered parliament without a political community.Less
This last chapter addresses the puzzle of why parliamentary democracy has become the legitimacy standard for the EU when there is no demos. We witness a development from a situation in which democracy served as a guiding norm for national systems only, to one where democracy has become an increasingly relevant standard also for evaluating the EU. Following its empowerment, the European Parliament, together with national parliaments, is part of a European multi‐level parliamentary field. But why has the reform process taken the form of support for a parliamentarian model of representative democracy when central conditions for it to work properly are not in place? The solution to the puzzle is sought in the normative thrust of the parliamentary principle as the main embodiment of popular rule. But the lingering question is whether there can be democracy based on an empowered parliament without a political community.
Juan J. Linz
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199246748
- eISBN:
- 9780191599385
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199246742.003.0011
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Juan Linz examines the same theme of anti‐party sentiments among citizens in contemporary democracies as did the previous chapter, but from an entirely different perspective. He starts by looking at ...
More
Juan Linz examines the same theme of anti‐party sentiments among citizens in contemporary democracies as did the previous chapter, but from an entirely different perspective. He starts by looking at the fundamental differences between the roles played by parties in presidential and parliamentary democracies, and notes that each type of party system also generates different critiques of parties. Notwithstanding, these differences among party systems and between presidential and parliamentary democracies, Linz notes that parties everywhere have become the focus of a remarkably similar litany of complaints and criticisms, and asks to what extent these represent expressions of reasoned concerns over the shortcomings of the actual performance of parties, and conversely, to what extent they reflect ambiguous, confusing, or even self‐contradictory evaluations by citizens based upon unreasonable expectations or a lack of understanding of the complexities and cross‐pressures that parties are subjected to in performing their many roles in democratic politics. On the basis of survey data from Spain and Latin America, he suggests that the increase in negative attitudes towards political parties maybe less attributable to the behaviour of parties themselves than it is to inconsistencies or outright contradictions among relevant beliefs held by citizens, to unrealistic expectations concerning the extent to which parties can achieve a series of demanding objectives, or to the increasing number of the functions that parties must play in representative democracies. The main sections of the chapter are: Attitudes towards parties: paradoxes, contradictions, and ambiguities; Personalization of politics and professionalization of politics; Parties, money, and party democracy; and Distrust of parties and the legitimacy of democracy.Less
Juan Linz examines the same theme of anti‐party sentiments among citizens in contemporary democracies as did the previous chapter, but from an entirely different perspective. He starts by looking at the fundamental differences between the roles played by parties in presidential and parliamentary democracies, and notes that each type of party system also generates different critiques of parties. Notwithstanding, these differences among party systems and between presidential and parliamentary democracies, Linz notes that parties everywhere have become the focus of a remarkably similar litany of complaints and criticisms, and asks to what extent these represent expressions of reasoned concerns over the shortcomings of the actual performance of parties, and conversely, to what extent they reflect ambiguous, confusing, or even self‐contradictory evaluations by citizens based upon unreasonable expectations or a lack of understanding of the complexities and cross‐pressures that parties are subjected to in performing their many roles in democratic politics. On the basis of survey data from Spain and Latin America, he suggests that the increase in negative attitudes towards political parties maybe less attributable to the behaviour of parties themselves than it is to inconsistencies or outright contradictions among relevant beliefs held by citizens, to unrealistic expectations concerning the extent to which parties can achieve a series of demanding objectives, or to the increasing number of the functions that parties must play in representative democracies. The main sections of the chapter are: Attitudes towards parties: paradoxes, contradictions, and ambiguities; Personalization of politics and professionalization of politics; Parties, money, and party democracy; and Distrust of parties and the legitimacy of democracy.
Alec Stone Sweet
- Published in print:
- 2000
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780198297710
- eISBN:
- 9780191601095
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198297718.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Focuses on how and why parliamentary systems of governance have accommodated constitutional review. The American and European models of constitutional review are contrasted, and the history, ...
More
Focuses on how and why parliamentary systems of governance have accommodated constitutional review. The American and European models of constitutional review are contrasted, and the history, structure, and function of European constitutional courts are surveyed. The necessity of review in defending human rights and its conceptualization as a means of completing the constitution over time are found to be particularly important across these cases, but factors explaining the variance in the judicialization of European law‐making are also identified. The chapter ends with a discussion of the main determinants of European constitutional politics.Less
Focuses on how and why parliamentary systems of governance have accommodated constitutional review. The American and European models of constitutional review are contrasted, and the history, structure, and function of European constitutional courts are surveyed. The necessity of review in defending human rights and its conceptualization as a means of completing the constitution over time are found to be particularly important across these cases, but factors explaining the variance in the judicialization of European law‐making are also identified. The chapter ends with a discussion of the main determinants of European constitutional politics.
Pippa Norris
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198295686
- eISBN:
- 9780191600043
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198295685.003.0011
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Substantial cross‐national variations have been demonstrated in political support/institutional confidence; the aim of this chapter is to investigate why these major differences between countries ...
More
Substantial cross‐national variations have been demonstrated in political support/institutional confidence; the aim of this chapter is to investigate why these major differences between countries exist. It identifies at least three separate schools of thought seeking to explain this phenomenon: the role of cultural values, government performance, and political institutions. Comparisons are made among a broad range of political systems, drawing on the 1981–4, 1990–1 and 1995–7 World Values Surveys, the Latinobarometer and the Eurobarometer, and various support hypotheses are advanced (support for the party in government; dependence on level of democratization; differences between presidential and parliamentary systems (executive structure); variation with party system; differences between federal and unitary state structures; and variation with electoral system) and tested. The findings indicate that institutional confidence is most likely to be highest in parliamentary democracies characterized by plurality electoral systems, two‐party or moderate multi‐party systems, and unitary states, and that these relationships are confirmed even after controlling for differences in levels of economic development and post‐material values; social background and education are also related to institutional confidence, while the influence of socioeconomic status and gender are very modest. The results replicate one of the main theoretical principles of Anderson and Guillory (1997)—that winners express more confidence in the system than losers, and they also show that majoritarian institutions tend to produce greater institutional confidence than consociational arrangements.Less
Substantial cross‐national variations have been demonstrated in political support/institutional confidence; the aim of this chapter is to investigate why these major differences between countries exist. It identifies at least three separate schools of thought seeking to explain this phenomenon: the role of cultural values, government performance, and political institutions. Comparisons are made among a broad range of political systems, drawing on the 1981–4, 1990–1 and 1995–7 World Values Surveys, the Latinobarometer and the Eurobarometer, and various support hypotheses are advanced (support for the party in government; dependence on level of democratization; differences between presidential and parliamentary systems (executive structure); variation with party system; differences between federal and unitary state structures; and variation with electoral system) and tested. The findings indicate that institutional confidence is most likely to be highest in parliamentary democracies characterized by plurality electoral systems, two‐party or moderate multi‐party systems, and unitary states, and that these relationships are confirmed even after controlling for differences in levels of economic development and post‐material values; social background and education are also related to institutional confidence, while the influence of socioeconomic status and gender are very modest. The results replicate one of the main theoretical principles of Anderson and Guillory (1997)—that winners express more confidence in the system than losers, and they also show that majoritarian institutions tend to produce greater institutional confidence than consociational arrangements.
B.L. Shankar and Valerian Rodrigues
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198067726
- eISBN:
- 9780199080434
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198067726.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Indian Politics
The choice of a parliamentary form of government around which Indian democracy came to thrive is the outcome of a complex process of intellectual churning. Parliamentary institutions were not an ...
More
The choice of a parliamentary form of government around which Indian democracy came to thrive is the outcome of a complex process of intellectual churning. Parliamentary institutions were not an evolutionary complex in India and the reasons that leaders advanced for their choice of such institutions was not an attachment to colonial legacies either. Elections are the principal mechanisms of sustaining and regenerating these institutions. What prompted India to opt for parliamentary democracy in spite of it being closely tied up with the colonial regime? How did the mode of election in a deeply diverse and inegalitarian polity affect the institution of parliamentary government over time? These are some of the issues that are examined in detail in this chapter. This chapter also highlights the nexus between the electoral processes in India and the Parliament on the one hand, and political parties and the Parliament on the other.Less
The choice of a parliamentary form of government around which Indian democracy came to thrive is the outcome of a complex process of intellectual churning. Parliamentary institutions were not an evolutionary complex in India and the reasons that leaders advanced for their choice of such institutions was not an attachment to colonial legacies either. Elections are the principal mechanisms of sustaining and regenerating these institutions. What prompted India to opt for parliamentary democracy in spite of it being closely tied up with the colonial regime? How did the mode of election in a deeply diverse and inegalitarian polity affect the institution of parliamentary government over time? These are some of the issues that are examined in detail in this chapter. This chapter also highlights the nexus between the electoral processes in India and the Parliament on the one hand, and political parties and the Parliament on the other.
David Arter
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198293866
- eISBN:
- 9780191599156
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198293860.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Since the retirement of President Kekkonen in 1981, a process of piecemeal constitutional reform has strengthened the core concept of parliamentary government at the expense of the old ...
More
Since the retirement of President Kekkonen in 1981, a process of piecemeal constitutional reform has strengthened the core concept of parliamentary government at the expense of the old quasi‐monarchical elements in the Finnish political system; this modernization process has been propelled by a concern to avoid the possibility of a recurrence of the ‘enlightened despotism’ of the Kekkonen era, and has been aided by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Recent constitutional changes have also enhanced the involvement of the prime minister and government in the performance of the federative (foreign policy) function; above all, the institutional adaptation required by membership of the EU has emphasized the bicephalous character of the Finnish political executive in a way reminiscent of interwar practice. Political factors, notably the ability of the party system to deliver stable majority coalitions, have worked in the same direction, and indeed arguments have been made in favour of the abolition of the whole institution of the presidency. With parliament having recently accepted the main findings of the Nikula Committee's report and restricted the president's involvement in the process of coalition‐building, as well as vesting the government with powers jointly to manage foreign policy, it is clear that Finland is en route to becoming an orthodox parliamentary democracy: the head of state has lost his exclusive charge of the federative function; his involvement in the legislative process is limited and exceptional; and even his executive powers—particularly his powers of appointment—have been restricted in recent years. The different sections of the chapter are: Constitution‐Making 1917–1919: A Monarchical Republic?; The Shift to a President‐Dominant System, 1940–1987; From President‐Dominant to Pluralist Foreign Policy‐Making, 1987–1998; and Towards a Ceremonial Presidency?Less
Since the retirement of President Kekkonen in 1981, a process of piecemeal constitutional reform has strengthened the core concept of parliamentary government at the expense of the old quasi‐monarchical elements in the Finnish political system; this modernization process has been propelled by a concern to avoid the possibility of a recurrence of the ‘enlightened despotism’ of the Kekkonen era, and has been aided by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Recent constitutional changes have also enhanced the involvement of the prime minister and government in the performance of the federative (foreign policy) function; above all, the institutional adaptation required by membership of the EU has emphasized the bicephalous character of the Finnish political executive in a way reminiscent of interwar practice. Political factors, notably the ability of the party system to deliver stable majority coalitions, have worked in the same direction, and indeed arguments have been made in favour of the abolition of the whole institution of the presidency. With parliament having recently accepted the main findings of the Nikula Committee's report and restricted the president's involvement in the process of coalition‐building, as well as vesting the government with powers jointly to manage foreign policy, it is clear that Finland is en route to becoming an orthodox parliamentary democracy: the head of state has lost his exclusive charge of the federative function; his involvement in the legislative process is limited and exceptional; and even his executive powers—particularly his powers of appointment—have been restricted in recent years. The different sections of the chapter are: Constitution‐Making 1917–1919: A Monarchical Republic?; The Shift to a President‐Dominant System, 1940–1987; From President‐Dominant to Pluralist Foreign Policy‐Making, 1987–1998; and Towards a Ceremonial Presidency?
Peter L. Lindseth
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195390148
- eISBN:
- 9780199866397
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195390148.003.0003
- Subject:
- Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Public International Law
This chapter explores the national antecedents to European integration by looking at the postwar constitutional settlement of administrative governance on the national level in more detail. It begins ...
More
This chapter explores the national antecedents to European integration by looking at the postwar constitutional settlement of administrative governance on the national level in more detail. It begins by describing the constitutional crises of the interwar period. The first section surveys the strains placed on traditional conceptions of separation of powers during the interwar period (the so-called ‘crisis of parliamentary democracy’) and the role of functionalism as an idée-force in both domestic public-law debates and international-relations theory. This discussion focuses particularly on the views of Carl Schmitt and David Mitrany. The chapter then turns to the elements of the postwar constitutional settlement: the phenomenon of delegation and the redefinition of the role of constitutional legislatures (parliaments); the role of the chief executive in providing ‘plebiscitary leadership’ for the growing technocratic-administrative sphere; and finally the emergence of courts as mechanisms to ensure constitutional commitments to individual rights and collective democratic structures. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the system of ‘mediated legitimacy’ as essential to the constitutional stabilization of administrative governance in the postwar decades, on which European integration would also subsequently build.Less
This chapter explores the national antecedents to European integration by looking at the postwar constitutional settlement of administrative governance on the national level in more detail. It begins by describing the constitutional crises of the interwar period. The first section surveys the strains placed on traditional conceptions of separation of powers during the interwar period (the so-called ‘crisis of parliamentary democracy’) and the role of functionalism as an idée-force in both domestic public-law debates and international-relations theory. This discussion focuses particularly on the views of Carl Schmitt and David Mitrany. The chapter then turns to the elements of the postwar constitutional settlement: the phenomenon of delegation and the redefinition of the role of constitutional legislatures (parliaments); the role of the chief executive in providing ‘plebiscitary leadership’ for the growing technocratic-administrative sphere; and finally the emergence of courts as mechanisms to ensure constitutional commitments to individual rights and collective democratic structures. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the system of ‘mediated legitimacy’ as essential to the constitutional stabilization of administrative governance in the postwar decades, on which European integration would also subsequently build.
B. L. Shankar and Valerian Rodrigues
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198067726
- eISBN:
- 9780199080434
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198067726.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Indian Politics
The Parliament is the visible face of democracy in India. It is the epicentre of political life, public institutions of great verve, and a regime of Rights. In a first-of-its-kind study, this book ...
More
The Parliament is the visible face of democracy in India. It is the epicentre of political life, public institutions of great verve, and a regime of Rights. In a first-of-its-kind study, this book delves into the lived experience of the Indian Parliament by focusing on three distinct phases—the 1950s, the 1970s, and the 1990s and beyond. The authors argue against the widely held notion of its ongoing decline, and demonstrate how it has repeatedly, and successfully, responded to India's changing needs in six decades of existence. This comprehensive and authoritative study examines the changing social composition and differing modes of representation that make up the Lok Sabha and critically explores its relation with the Rajya Sabha. Developments in the institutional complex of the Parliament, including the functioning of the Opposition and the Speaker are traced over time, along with the processes of legislation and accountability. Major debates in the House are scrutinized, and much of the analysis is based on empirical data gathered from surveys circulated among prominent politicians and public intellectuals. It also addresses the intricate issue of relations between the Judiciary and the Parliament. In its in-depth focus on the Lok Sabha, the volume highlights the way the Parliament has come to encompass India's proverbial diversity. It especially demonstrates the route this institution has taken to engage with fractious issues of diverging linguistic and regional demands.Less
The Parliament is the visible face of democracy in India. It is the epicentre of political life, public institutions of great verve, and a regime of Rights. In a first-of-its-kind study, this book delves into the lived experience of the Indian Parliament by focusing on three distinct phases—the 1950s, the 1970s, and the 1990s and beyond. The authors argue against the widely held notion of its ongoing decline, and demonstrate how it has repeatedly, and successfully, responded to India's changing needs in six decades of existence. This comprehensive and authoritative study examines the changing social composition and differing modes of representation that make up the Lok Sabha and critically explores its relation with the Rajya Sabha. Developments in the institutional complex of the Parliament, including the functioning of the Opposition and the Speaker are traced over time, along with the processes of legislation and accountability. Major debates in the House are scrutinized, and much of the analysis is based on empirical data gathered from surveys circulated among prominent politicians and public intellectuals. It also addresses the intricate issue of relations between the Judiciary and the Parliament. In its in-depth focus on the Lok Sabha, the volume highlights the way the Parliament has come to encompass India's proverbial diversity. It especially demonstrates the route this institution has taken to engage with fractious issues of diverging linguistic and regional demands.
Stefan Berger
- Published in print:
- 1994
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198205005
- eISBN:
- 9780191676451
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205005.003.0002
- Subject:
- History, European Modern History
This chapter compares the integration of the British and the German labour movements into their respective societies. It aims to provide support to the argument that British and German societies were ...
More
This chapter compares the integration of the British and the German labour movements into their respective societies. It aims to provide support to the argument that British and German societies were not so different in their response to the labour movement. It discusses the ambiguity of state reactions to Labour, including outright repression, the ambiguous attitude of working class parties towards parliamentary democracy, and the attitudes of both working class parties to the middle classes and the bourgeois culture.Less
This chapter compares the integration of the British and the German labour movements into their respective societies. It aims to provide support to the argument that British and German societies were not so different in their response to the labour movement. It discusses the ambiguity of state reactions to Labour, including outright repression, the ambiguous attitude of working class parties towards parliamentary democracy, and the attitudes of both working class parties to the middle classes and the bourgeois culture.
Amy Ng
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199273096
- eISBN:
- 9780191706318
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273096.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, European Modern History
National self-determination and the formation of nation-states has been the preferred liberal solution to the nationality conflict in Central and Eastern Europe. Historians have played a prominent ...
More
National self-determination and the formation of nation-states has been the preferred liberal solution to the nationality conflict in Central and Eastern Europe. Historians have played a prominent role in constructing nationalist narratives to legitimise the new nation-states arising from the corpse of the multinational Habsburg monarchy. The alternative liberal and historiographical tradition which privileges multinational states over nation-states, most famously associated with Lord Acton, has been relatively ignored. The book addresses this imbalance by concentrating on the lives and works of Josef Redlich (1869-1936) and Lewis Namier (1869-1936), both politically active historians from upper-middle-class assimilated Habsburg Jewish backgrounds. They were anti-nationalist historians in an age of nationalism, and staunch defenders of parliamentary democracy in an era when it came under attack from both the political right and left. Both men argued that modern nationalism with its absolutist claims militated against the spirit of tolerance and mutual compromise essential to parliamentary government. This innovative, intellectual history places Redlich and Namier in context.Less
National self-determination and the formation of nation-states has been the preferred liberal solution to the nationality conflict in Central and Eastern Europe. Historians have played a prominent role in constructing nationalist narratives to legitimise the new nation-states arising from the corpse of the multinational Habsburg monarchy. The alternative liberal and historiographical tradition which privileges multinational states over nation-states, most famously associated with Lord Acton, has been relatively ignored. The book addresses this imbalance by concentrating on the lives and works of Josef Redlich (1869-1936) and Lewis Namier (1869-1936), both politically active historians from upper-middle-class assimilated Habsburg Jewish backgrounds. They were anti-nationalist historians in an age of nationalism, and staunch defenders of parliamentary democracy in an era when it came under attack from both the political right and left. Both men argued that modern nationalism with its absolutist claims militated against the spirit of tolerance and mutual compromise essential to parliamentary government. This innovative, intellectual history places Redlich and Namier in context.
Mariya Y. Omelicheva
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780813160689
- eISBN:
- 9780813161006
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Kentucky
- DOI:
- 10.5810/kentucky/9780813160689.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This chapter explains how the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan devised and actively disseminated their own rhetorical and ideological subsets of democracy, presented under the guises ...
More
This chapter explains how the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan devised and actively disseminated their own rhetorical and ideological subsets of democracy, presented under the guises of “presidential democracy” in Kazakhstan, “consultative democracy” in Kyrgyzstan, and the “Uzbek model of democracy” in Uzbekistan. It discusses the essence of these local democratic varieties, as well as strategies used by these governments to defend their alternative models of democracy and different standards for assessing it. Although these models, which have delegitimized Western conceptions of democracy and efforts at international democratization, do have distinctive features, several characteristics are shared in all three nations. Similarities include a deep ethnic heritage, a strong state personified by a strong leader, the prioritization of security and economic development over political modernization, and the principle of gradual political reform. This chapter posits that, by defining what counts as democracy and democratization and linking these notions to history and culture, the Central Asian leaders not only reinforce their own understanding of their political rule but also foster knowledge of democracy and attitudes about democratization among the people targeted by national democracy frames.Less
This chapter explains how the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan devised and actively disseminated their own rhetorical and ideological subsets of democracy, presented under the guises of “presidential democracy” in Kazakhstan, “consultative democracy” in Kyrgyzstan, and the “Uzbek model of democracy” in Uzbekistan. It discusses the essence of these local democratic varieties, as well as strategies used by these governments to defend their alternative models of democracy and different standards for assessing it. Although these models, which have delegitimized Western conceptions of democracy and efforts at international democratization, do have distinctive features, several characteristics are shared in all three nations. Similarities include a deep ethnic heritage, a strong state personified by a strong leader, the prioritization of security and economic development over political modernization, and the principle of gradual political reform. This chapter posits that, by defining what counts as democracy and democratization and linking these notions to history and culture, the Central Asian leaders not only reinforce their own understanding of their political rule but also foster knowledge of democracy and attitudes about democratization among the people targeted by national democracy frames.
Peter M. R. Stirk
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780748622900
- eISBN:
- 9780748652730
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748622900.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Germany, as Europe's most powerful state, has a political significance that underlines the importance of twentieth-century German political thought. Yet this tradition has been poorly represented in ...
More
Germany, as Europe's most powerful state, has a political significance that underlines the importance of twentieth-century German political thought. Yet this tradition has been poorly represented in academic literature. This book offers an account of German political thought, emphasising its diversity and contested nature, and gives an overview of the subject that allows access to relatively unknown figures as well as the ‘names’ of the tradition (Weber, Schmitt, Arendt, Habermas). The book also demonstrates the political significance of figures better known in other disciplines including law and sociology. The book is organised chronologically, with a series of recurrent themes providing analytic unity: the nature of politics (including political vocation and leadership, and definitions of politics), collective identity, the rule of law, the role of the state, the role of political parties and the nature of parliamentary democracy, state intervention in society and the economy and, finally, the international order. Pedagogical features include a glossary of German terms and a substantial set of biographical notes identifying the major theorists referred to in the text.Less
Germany, as Europe's most powerful state, has a political significance that underlines the importance of twentieth-century German political thought. Yet this tradition has been poorly represented in academic literature. This book offers an account of German political thought, emphasising its diversity and contested nature, and gives an overview of the subject that allows access to relatively unknown figures as well as the ‘names’ of the tradition (Weber, Schmitt, Arendt, Habermas). The book also demonstrates the political significance of figures better known in other disciplines including law and sociology. The book is organised chronologically, with a series of recurrent themes providing analytic unity: the nature of politics (including political vocation and leadership, and definitions of politics), collective identity, the rule of law, the role of the state, the role of political parties and the nature of parliamentary democracy, state intervention in society and the economy and, finally, the international order. Pedagogical features include a glossary of German terms and a substantial set of biographical notes identifying the major theorists referred to in the text.
B.L. Shankar and Valerian Rodrigues
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198067726
- eISBN:
- 9780199080434
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198067726.003.0010
- Subject:
- Political Science, Indian Politics
The Indian judiciary may view itself as the custodian of the constitution and act as the balance between the contending levels and powers of a complex array of public institutions. Eventually the ...
More
The Indian judiciary may view itself as the custodian of the constitution and act as the balance between the contending levels and powers of a complex array of public institutions. Eventually the composition of the judiciary and sustenance of the conditions of its endurance are formulated and given concrete shape by the Parliament. The Lok Sabha is the epicentre of Parliament, and its public presence has grown enormously over the years. It was not easy for India to opt for parliamentary democracy as there was no precedence. Recent literature on Indian politics has highlighted the rise of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to prominence from the 1980s onwards. The tendency to assert pluralism or diversity cannot be seen as an attempt to promote a notion of nationalism distanced from individual rights or a post-modern tendency of de-centring of the nation or the consequence of the global turn of Indian polity.Less
The Indian judiciary may view itself as the custodian of the constitution and act as the balance between the contending levels and powers of a complex array of public institutions. Eventually the composition of the judiciary and sustenance of the conditions of its endurance are formulated and given concrete shape by the Parliament. The Lok Sabha is the epicentre of Parliament, and its public presence has grown enormously over the years. It was not easy for India to opt for parliamentary democracy as there was no precedence. Recent literature on Indian politics has highlighted the rise of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to prominence from the 1980s onwards. The tendency to assert pluralism or diversity cannot be seen as an attempt to promote a notion of nationalism distanced from individual rights or a post-modern tendency of de-centring of the nation or the consequence of the global turn of Indian polity.
Paul Langford
- Published in print:
- 1994
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198205340
- eISBN:
- 9780191676574
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205340.003.0003
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Early Modern History
In this chapter, the image of Parliament is transformed from the heroic defender of individual rights and liberties into the pawn of interest groups, not so much imposing its legislative will as ...
More
In this chapter, the image of Parliament is transformed from the heroic defender of individual rights and liberties into the pawn of interest groups, not so much imposing its legislative will as providing its legislative services. The parliamentary achievement of the 18th century, which followed the Revolution of 1688, is often thought of in terms of constitutional progress. It paved the way for cabinet government and parliamentary democracy. Regular and predictable parliamentary sessions facilitated legislation on an unprecedented scale. Parliament's concessive attitude left extensive powers in the hands of vested interests, and the spirit of competition throve on numberless jealousies and animosities.Less
In this chapter, the image of Parliament is transformed from the heroic defender of individual rights and liberties into the pawn of interest groups, not so much imposing its legislative will as providing its legislative services. The parliamentary achievement of the 18th century, which followed the Revolution of 1688, is often thought of in terms of constitutional progress. It paved the way for cabinet government and parliamentary democracy. Regular and predictable parliamentary sessions facilitated legislation on an unprecedented scale. Parliament's concessive attitude left extensive powers in the hands of vested interests, and the spirit of competition throve on numberless jealousies and animosities.
Mark Mazower
- Published in print:
- 1991
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198202059
- eISBN:
- 9780191675126
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198202059.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, European Modern History, Economic History
The great depression of the inter-war years was the most profound shock ever to strike the world economy, and is widely held to have led directly to the collapse of parliamentary democracy in many ...
More
The great depression of the inter-war years was the most profound shock ever to strike the world economy, and is widely held to have led directly to the collapse of parliamentary democracy in many countries. This study of Greece in the period between the two world wars, however, demonstrates that there was no simple correlation between economic and political crisis. How was an underdeveloped country such as Greece able to recover so fast from this unprecedented economic crisis? This book examines the complex processes involved, basing analysis on detailed statistical research. Recovery, like crisis, threatened prevailing notions of the relationship between state and society, and undermined traditional ruling elites.Less
The great depression of the inter-war years was the most profound shock ever to strike the world economy, and is widely held to have led directly to the collapse of parliamentary democracy in many countries. This study of Greece in the period between the two world wars, however, demonstrates that there was no simple correlation between economic and political crisis. How was an underdeveloped country such as Greece able to recover so fast from this unprecedented economic crisis? This book examines the complex processes involved, basing analysis on detailed statistical research. Recovery, like crisis, threatened prevailing notions of the relationship between state and society, and undermined traditional ruling elites.
AMY NG
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199273096
- eISBN:
- 9780191706318
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273096.003.0001
- Subject:
- History, European Modern History
This book looks at the lives and works of Josef Redlich (1869-1936) and Lewis Namier (1869-1936), noted anti-nationalist historians — a minority position in an age when nationalism was at its apogee ...
More
This book looks at the lives and works of Josef Redlich (1869-1936) and Lewis Namier (1869-1936), noted anti-nationalist historians — a minority position in an age when nationalism was at its apogee in Central and Eastern Europe. Redlich and Namier were both anglophiles and passionate advocates of representative self-government. They increasingly saw Great Britain as an extraordinarily stable island of liberty in stark contrast to a dark, despotic Europe, where authoritarianism was intermittently broken by revolutions and peace ripped apart by nationalisms. Ultimately, their differences in personal temperament and philosophical assumptions led them to opposing conclusions about the viability of multinational federations, international comity, and the prospects of parliamentary democracy in continental Europe. This book focuses on their arguments against nationalism as well as their concern for political liberty and parliamentary democracy — all unpopular positions in Central and Eastern Europe during their lifetimes. Another focus of the book is the two historians' evolving attitudes towards the Habsburg monarchy and Great Britain.Less
This book looks at the lives and works of Josef Redlich (1869-1936) and Lewis Namier (1869-1936), noted anti-nationalist historians — a minority position in an age when nationalism was at its apogee in Central and Eastern Europe. Redlich and Namier were both anglophiles and passionate advocates of representative self-government. They increasingly saw Great Britain as an extraordinarily stable island of liberty in stark contrast to a dark, despotic Europe, where authoritarianism was intermittently broken by revolutions and peace ripped apart by nationalisms. Ultimately, their differences in personal temperament and philosophical assumptions led them to opposing conclusions about the viability of multinational federations, international comity, and the prospects of parliamentary democracy in continental Europe. This book focuses on their arguments against nationalism as well as their concern for political liberty and parliamentary democracy — all unpopular positions in Central and Eastern Europe during their lifetimes. Another focus of the book is the two historians' evolving attitudes towards the Habsburg monarchy and Great Britain.
AMY NG
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199273096
- eISBN:
- 9780191706318
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273096.003.0007
- Subject:
- History, European Modern History
The lives of Josef Redlich and Lewis Namier were so intertwined with the demands for individual freedom and national liberation from dynastic absolutism which first took centre stage politically in ...
More
The lives of Josef Redlich and Lewis Namier were so intertwined with the demands for individual freedom and national liberation from dynastic absolutism which first took centre stage politically in the Habsburg lands in 1848. These demands reached an apogee during World War I, and resulted in the dismantling of the multinational Habsburg monarchy and the establishment of democratic nation-states in Europe. Contrary to the dominant intellectual trends of their times, Redlich and Namier argued that nationalism was inimical to political liberty and that the sovereignty of the people could lead to even worse tyrannies than that of absolute monarchy. They were anti-nationalist historians in an age of nationalism, and staunch defenders of parliamentary democracy in an era when it came under attack from both the political right and left. Furthermore, Redlich and Namier regarded Great Britain as the paragon of political liberty and its parliament as the Mother of Parliaments.Less
The lives of Josef Redlich and Lewis Namier were so intertwined with the demands for individual freedom and national liberation from dynastic absolutism which first took centre stage politically in the Habsburg lands in 1848. These demands reached an apogee during World War I, and resulted in the dismantling of the multinational Habsburg monarchy and the establishment of democratic nation-states in Europe. Contrary to the dominant intellectual trends of their times, Redlich and Namier argued that nationalism was inimical to political liberty and that the sovereignty of the people could lead to even worse tyrannies than that of absolute monarchy. They were anti-nationalist historians in an age of nationalism, and staunch defenders of parliamentary democracy in an era when it came under attack from both the political right and left. Furthermore, Redlich and Namier regarded Great Britain as the paragon of political liberty and its parliament as the Mother of Parliaments.
