parliamentary government

[cellio]

I've never lived under a parliamentary government, and watching them from the outside can sometimes be confusing. Most of my "information" comes from watching Israeli politics, with occasional supplements from Canada; I realize these aren't the only such governments and that each country presumably has its own quirks. But there are some things I wonder about, including wondering which ones are inherrent properties and which are quirks.

I infer that creating new political parties -- that have standing to run in national elections, I mean -- is fairly easy. Israel has a plethora of parties. Sharon is quitting his own party to form a new one, and the last election saw a new party that was one of the top three vote-getters. In the US this is hard; there are lots of parties, but the Democrats and Republicans have privileged access to both the ballot and tax-funded campaign money, so it's not a level playing field. From the outside, it looks like Sharon's new party will occupy the same niche as that new party from last time (Shinui) -- but presumably it would be a sign of political weakness for him to just join the party he ran against, while the cost of starting a new one is low, so he forms his own. Because it's a coalition government, he and those other guys may well end up in the same voting block anyway.

Is that sort of thing the reason that there are bunches of small parties, most of which secures its 3 or 4 seats in a 120-seat parliament? Do parties ever die off? Do prominent players ever change parties, as opposed to creating new ones? Or, alternatively, do you get a lot of one-off parties, ones that are formed for one election and then fade away?

I find the idea of proportional seats in government (based on the vote split) to be interesting. It's a stark contrast to what we have in the US, where in each race the winner takes all. The only thing that keeps the ruling party from running roughshod over everyone -- when anything does, I mean -- is that there are lots of these races. I wonder how different US politics would be if Congress were made up of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and whatever else in rough proportion to their distribution in the population, with the president being not individually elected but the head of the party that got the most votes. (I perceive that our president has roughly the powers of a prime minister in the parliamentary system.) On the other hand, in a system like Israel's the elected representatives aren't individually accountable to the voters, so it can be hard for the people to remove someone they don't like.

The ever-changing bedfellows of parliamentary governments can get hard to follow without a score-card. I sometimes wonder how they get anything done. (But that can be a feature. :-) )

Speaking of getting things done, I couldn't find an answer to this at Wikipedia: between the time the parliament is disolved and the time elections are held, how does governance happen? For example, the Israeli parliament was dissolved today and elections will be in February or March; who makes decisions in the meantime? Or does this mean they're in a mode of "administration but not law-making"? (Is that a relevant difference? Which category would contain the budget?)

Comments

[geekosaur]

For what it's worth, there was speculation, immediately after Peres lost his post within Labor, that he would join Sharon if he quit the Likud and started his own party. (As it turns out, it looks like he decided to stay with Labor.)

There's also the business of parties deciding to merge; IIRC several parties merged last cycle to form Yachad, which has since changed its name to what I vaguely recall as being that of one of the original parties (Meretz). And it looks like NRP and the National Union Party are in merger talks now, if HaAretz can be believed.

Fascinating stuff, watching the flow of politics in a distinctly different system.

[cellio]

For what it's worth, there was speculation, immediately after Peres lost his post within Labor, that he would join Sharon if he quit the Likud and started his own party.

That wouldn't have surprised me; his prospects in Labor can't be good right now, and a centrist party is naturally going to attract the moderates from the farther-out parties.

There's also the business of parties deciding to merge;

True. I think Likud absorbed one of the smaller parties after the last election, too.

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Most of what I know about parlimentary systems... I got from reading the last few Honor Harrington books so who knows...

[cafemusique.livejournal.com]

And in Canadian parliamentary news, today (as expected) the three opposition parties co-operated to pass a resolution asking the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament the first week of January and call a general election for mid-February. Since the Liberal government is a minority, the resolution passed.

Of course, it's non-binding, and the government has said they'll do no such thing, because the resolution doesn't meet the test for a non-confidence motion. They say the opposition is trying to shift the blame for a campaign over Christmas. The opposition parties plan to introduce a real non-confidence motion, which will be debated Thursday and voted on a week from today.

At that point, it is assumed the government will be defeated Nov. 28th with an election being called for early-to-mid January.

As I say, this has been expected for a few days or so, so on Ottawa Morning, the morning show on CBC radio in Ottawa, the host joked that "A Parliament has been dissolved, an election has been called -- and it isn't in Canada!"

[cellio]

Of course, it's non-binding, and the government has said they'll do no such thing, because the resolution doesn't meet the test for a non-confidence motion.

I assume this was a test balloon, then, so they wouldn't have to pay the political price if an attempt at a no-confidence vote failed for some reason? I thought such things were usually worked out through back channels so you'd know how many votes you have going in.

At that point, it is assumed the government will be defeated Nov. 28th with an election being called for early-to-mid January.

Well, it'll give you something other than Christmas (excuse me, "holiday") music to listen to on the radio. :-)

[cafemusique.livejournal.com]

I got this in my inbox tonight, as the LJ mail server finally gets rid of the comments that didn't get delivered at the end of November.

I assume this was a test balloon, then, so they wouldn't have to pay the political price if an attempt at a no-confidence vote failed for some reason? I thought such things were usually worked out through back channels so you'd know how many votes you have going in.

Not a test balloon. They knew they had the votes. There had been much speculation by the party leaders about the reactions of Canadians to an election campaign over the holidays...and so this was an attempt to make it harder for the government to say "It's the opposition's fault we've got this election now." (Because the opposition can say it's because the government wouldn't agree to call the election in January.)

Of course, by now, it seems to be a non-issue. (At least, that's my guess...with my satellite radio now, I haven't been listening to much news, especially because XMs sole Canadian news outlet sounds worse (if you can believe it) than RealAudio did over a 14.4 modem connection. It took me a couple of times to be certain that the voice was human and not a text-to-speech reader.)

[jslove.livejournal.com]

between the time the parliament is dissolved and the time elections are held, how does governance happen?

The phrase I recall, and it's from Double Star, a Heinlein book, is caretaker government. There is actually a short article on this in Wikipedia, under caretaker in politics. I don't know anything about the rules for forming a caretaker government after a no-confidence vote, or after a government is dissolved for new elections, but I expect such rules would be part of the constitution for a parliamentary system, and therefore could vary quite a bit from country to country.

Many constitutions must be available on-line. I'm not sure all would be in English translation, but at least Canada and Great Britain ought to be easy to find. Israel might want the ability to read Hebrew; I haven't checked.

[pedropadrao.livejournal.com]

Actually, the UK doesn't have a written constitution, so you'd look in vain. That being said, in a caretaker situation, things apparently just go into housekeeping mode-no bills are passed, no major appointments.

[jslove.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, my ignorance is showing; I never claimed expertise. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's easy for bureaucracies to go into housekeeping mode. It's really just business as usual. Perhaps the military likewise: the generals would have enough latitude to deal with most problems, and hopefully could postpone anything really major until after the elections. With a monarchy in the background, there is always someone to step up to the plate, perhaps, if an emergency required policy decisions or someone to speak for the country and parliament were unavailable. Lacking that, the problem of forming a viable caretaker government might be more acute. Israel, in particular, has reason to fear being attacked while vulnerable; perhaps their rules would be enlightening.

Google turned up a list of countries and their governing documents. There are several governments with no formal constitutions as such, including Canada, Israel and the U.K. The list of government types there might be more useful for finding those with both parliamentary systems and constitutions.

[cafemusique.livejournal.com]

Actually, Canada's does have a constitution, it is just spread over various documents. Especially in 1867 (at Confederation) and in 1982. There are unwritten traditions, but not enough that Canada could be said to not have a formal constitution.

(BTW, as LJ's mail server gets back to normal, I got a reply message just tonight to my comment on this entry...which is why I'm responding so late to this.)

[cellio]

Thanks. I hadn't heard the term "caretaker government" before.

Professor Internet Responds

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Between now and new elections the Israeli government still remains the government, but will not pass major legislation. The idea of a "lame duck" is obviously in the US system as well (in which the executive branch does not even necessarily have majority legislative support). Until 1933 the new president/Congress didn't even take office until March, which is quite a long time after a November election. (The assumption, like that of many state legislatures today, was that the legislature really doesn't need to be in session for the whole year.)

Any system can be designed to deal with the principle of coalitions in different ways. I'd argue that America does has coalition governments -- it's just that the coalitions take place before the election, not afterward. Free-marketeers and the religious right are both Republicans where in Israel (or Europe) they'd be different parties who forged an alliance after the election. This all derives from the structure of our system: in America we have a two party system not just because of institutional duopoly but because of the first-past-the-post system of all elections, where a vote for the loser is "thrown away" (ie unrepresented in who wins the particular seat and thus shares in the spoils of power).

The first-past-the-post system means that 50% plus 1 is absolutely necessary to having any chance of winning power. So, there is strong pressure on the big parties to compromise and cut deals with potential splitters. Classically the instrument for doing this was the party platform -- a platform that was too narrow might make a group walk out of the convention, forming a third party that would cripple the ability of the first party to win a majority of the votes. Ultimately they may even go over to the other side (as southern white Democrats did after forming their own party in 1948, through the 1970s). So there are "coalition governments" here -- just that the agreements making them are less formal.

The chief virtue of this kind of system is its stability, its chief defect a lack of a stake in making people vote. (Your vote doesn't "count" if you voted for a losing candidate.) Israel's system is kind of an extreme on the other side of the spectrum. I'm not sure what you refer to about "the only thing that keeps the ruling party from running roughshod" etc. In a pure parliamentary system like Britain's, all that keeps a large majority party from running roughshod is... the party's own conscience, which is why it's sometimes referred to as elected dictatorship. That's the logical outcome of democracy: the will of the voters, now enshrined in a government, is more or less absolute.

In the US, on the other hand, the principle of separation of powers is heavily built into the system. It very rarely happens that one party controls all the levers of power from dog catcher to president -- and even then, there are the courts. Just ask FDR: the American system is basically designed to make it very difficult for anything dramatic to get done without consensus from all those different layers, which is why American government is both much more limited than in other countries, and less democratically responsive. When you get a system designed to make it impossible to ever abolish slavery -- which is basically what the constitution was when ratified -- the rest more or less flows naturally.

Re: Professor Internet Responds

[cellio]

Thanks for the interesting comment. You're right that we have coalitions too; I wonder how significant the difference is between forming them before (so the voters know who's in) and after. I think the much bigger factor is our first-past-the-post system, where many voters are disenfranchised.

I'm not sure what you refer to about "the only thing that keeps the ruling party from running roughshod" etc.

I mean that in the US, you will sometimes see voters rebel and oust an incumbent in the next election. If you're voting for a party, though, and the leaders of that party don't have a problem with that individual, then your only power is to vote for a different party -- which you might not want to do if you like most of the slate. So instead of ousting someone at the polls, you have to work through the party and convince the party leadership. Parties vote on some positions (as we've just seen), but at least in Israel my impression is that rank-and-file party members don't vote on the lists of knesset candidates (either their names or their rankings).

Just ask FDR: the American system is basically designed to make it very difficult for anything dramatic to get done without consensus from all those different layers,

Do you need consensus from all the layers, or from all the branches at a given layer? For example, it seems quite dangerous to have the same party dominate the white house, Congress, and Supreme Court. Is it similarly dangerous if the same party holds the white house and most of the governorships, but not Congress?

Re: Professor Internet Responds

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

In terms of individual accountability, you're right that the names on the list are not accountable to voters -- but I suppose the fiction of "local representation" means less in a country as small as Israel. There are ways of accommodating the representation principle into a proportional-parliamentary system; in Ireland, for example, people vote for a representative, but then the "at-large" seats in the parliament are distributed so that the total tally of seats reflects the nation's proportional vote for each party. I've always thought that was a nice way to solve the problem.

Do you need consensus from all the layers, or from all the branches at a given layer?

Well, the opposition of state(s) in the US can often thwart federal power if it is determined enough, since states have a much better developed bureaucratic apparatus for administering things people care about. There are no federal school or election boards, or motor vehicle registries, for instance. Most of your interaction with the power of "the state" is with state officials. The great example would be in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Ed, where most southern states refused for many years to undertake any form of integration, or found creative ways to evade the court's plans. Open defiance could be countered with the National Guard, but desegregating the whole South via the Guard was untenable, so it didn't happen.

I could write about this stuff for HOURS, literally

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Sharon's party will be quite different from Shinui, I think. Shinui was designed to be a secular voice, agnostic about the peace process. Sharon's party will be all about national security within the framework of Sharon's guidance. I think it will gain a lot of the same voters, so that Shinui will shrink, but it's not the same animal.

Splitting from a party and striking out on one's own are endemic to Israeli parties. Both Labor and Likud contain so many former parties -- remember Labor was called "One Israel" a few years ago? and Likud was always called "the Likud bloc" when I was growing up, because it contained a number of factions who dissented from Labor hegemony. Both Labor and Likud have seen lots of leaders bolt over the past ten years. Then they do get welcomed back. The need to get 61 MK's means you can't hold your grudges too deeply if you want power. In this case, though, it's hard to envision a Likud with Netanyahu rejoining a Sharon coalition. The Likud will become an irredentist rump allied with the NRP (settlers) and some of the other religious parties in opposing anything that seems to distinguish the territories from Israel proper, i.e. disengagement. In that respect it will return to part of its roots: remember that one component of Likud was founded on the idea that the _East_ Bank of the Jordan should be part of the Jewish state. As we now remember, that wasn't Sharon's background.

I think the real question is what you raised, about how long this formation will hold. Center parties are unstable, and this one will be very much dependent on Sharon's health and personality. It's hard to imagine anyone else doing what he's doing. Then again, not so very long ago it was hard to imagine Sharon bolting Likud or antagonizing the settlers.

[sekhmets-song.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm no expert on parliamentary government, but I do know that the prime minister is not necessarily the equivalent of a US president. Many countries with parliaments have both a prime minister as well as a president. In some (Ireland, for example), the president is more of a figure-head than a truly powerful politician, but I am sure that varies from country to country.

[goljerp]

Israel's president is also a figure-head. I wonder if this "figure head but prominent" position is an influence of England's (extremely) limited monarchy -- doesn't the Queen hold a similar position (although based on heredity)?

Still, a PM, like a US president does get to set policy and appoint members of his/her cabinet (constrained by politics, of course). Of course it's easier to get rid of a PM, and a PM isn't elected directly (usually -- I think this changed recently in Israel), but still Israel's PM is much closer to the US president than Israel's President is.

[goljerp]

One problem that I see with the Israeli parlimentary system is that the bar is so low, there's very little barrier to entry. So people create one-issue parties, and they end up with a seat or two in parliament. The problem is that these people then have a mandate one one issue, but don't care about anything else, really. But the major parties (formerly Labor and Likud; I don't know what they'll be now) who get 40-odd seats need the small parties in their coalitions, so will often give in to their demands so they can get power. Which means that it's possible for a very small, but dedicated, bunch of people influence national policy. An example is the religious parties: even though most Israelis are secular, the religious parties have historically had a lot of power because as long as Labor or Likud gave them what they wanted, they'd join in a government. Of course, my knowledge of Israeli politics is really several years old, and I think that the details have changed recently...

[cellio]

That's a good point; one-issue parties can have disproportionate influence. Though when building a coalition, wouldn't you try for the bigger groups first so there are fewer factions to manage? If you're down to haggling over some extremist party's two seats, aren't you in trouble anyway?

[goljerp]

When I was living in Israel, what happened was that Likud would get 40-something seats, Labo(u)r would get 35-40 seats, Shas got 8, and everyone else got 1 or 2 seats. So you pretty much had to haggle for the small parties if you weren't going to go for a "unity government". My numbers may be off, but the point is that there are a lot of small parties...

[cellio]

The last election was a little different. From Wikipedia:

Likud 38
Labour 19
Shinui-Mifleget Merkaz 15
Shas 11
National Union 7
Meretz 6
National Religious Party 6
Yahadut HaTorah 5
five other parties with 2-3 seats each

There seems to be more for Likud to work with now than there used to be, though it looks like Labor still has problems. (I'm assuming that Labor is unlikely to want to get into bed with Shas or NRP, for instance.)

[cellio]

To finish the thought... so the problem is that the religious parties, like NRP and Shas, aren't small. They do have a lot of influence, but they also have a lot of backing. Their opposition has more backing, so the coalition leader has to dance carefully.

[brokengoose.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, in a system like Israel's the elected representatives aren't individually accountable to the voters, so it can be hard for the people to remove someone they don't like.

Thanks to our two-party system and rampant gerrymandering, 49% of the voters in many congressional districts can't get rid of the person they don't like who claims to represent them.

With proportional representation, if you don't like the people your party chooses as representatives, you can always start (or vote for) a new party.

[cellio]

And have some chance of your party actually having influence, yes.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

I was living in Israel in 1990 when the government fell. At that time, Yitzhak Shamir was the PM, and he ended up holding all the portfolios for 30 days, the span of time by which he had to either form a new government or call for new elections.

It used to be that if you had a desire to start a party in Israel, you could do so, and you'd get whatever percentage of seats in Kinesset that corresponded to the percentage of votes you got. I believe that they've tweaked the system somewhat in the past 15 years, and you now have to get above a certain percentage to get a seat in Kinesset.

[cellio]

To get a knesset seat a party needs to get either 1.5% or 2% of the votes (I've seen both figures and don't know which is right).

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

I think it's 2. Other systems solve the issue by setting a higher threshold -- Germany's is 5, I believe. The low threshold in Israel is one reason its system is seen as being on one end of the spectrum. Of course in their own way they're very proud of it!

[sethg]

I was informed (in some earlier LJ discussion) that the Israeli PM does not have as much power as the US President, at least in the following respect: The President, as head of the executive branch, can fire a member of his Cabinet. But the body of ministers chosen by the Knesset, including the PM, constitute The Government, so the PM doesn't have the authority to fire another minister.

I've seen occasional news items from Israel referring to votes within the Israeli Cabinet on whether or not to proceed with such and such an action; I'm not sure how the rules for that work.