Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:19:24.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shifting Power-Centres of Semi-Presidentialism: Exploring Executive Coordination in Lithuania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Tapio Raunio  and
Thomas Sedelius
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite more than two decades of research on semi-presidential regimes, we still know very little about the actual coordination between the president and the prime minister. Through an in-depth analysis of Lithuanian semi-presidentialism, this article underscores the importance of institutional design on intra-executive balance of power. Drawing primarily on interviews with top-level civil servants and office-holders, it argues that in the absence of written rules or other strong norms guiding intra-executive coordination, presidents enjoy more discretion in designing their own modes of operation. Coordination depends on the initiative of the president, with ad hoc practices further weakening the position of the prime minister. While Lithuanian semi-presidentialism has functioned smoothly, the personality-centred politics commonly found in Central and East European countries create favourable conditions for presidential activism.

Keywords

semi-presidentialismcoordinationinstitutionsleadershipLithuania
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 637 - 660
Copyright
© The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Tapio Raunio is Professor of Political Science at the University of Tampere. Contact email: [email protected].

Thomas Sedelius is Associate Professor in Political Science at Dalarna University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Adamkus, V. (2004), Be nutylėjimų: dienoraščiai, vertinimai, pastabos paraštėse (Vilnius : Tyto alba).Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, O. and Costa Lobo, M. (2009), ‘Portugal’s Semi-Presidentialism (Re)considered: An Assessment of the President’s Role in the Policy Process, 1976–2006’, European Journal of Political Research, 48(2): 234–255.Google Scholar
Baltic Barometer (2014), datafile, J. Ekman, Södertörn University, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Beuman, L.M. (2016), Political Institutions in East Timor: Semi-Presidentialism and Democratisation (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Brazauskas, A. (2007), Ir Tuomet Dirbome Lietuvai: Faktai, Atsiminimai, Komentarai (Vilnius: Knygiai).Google Scholar
Doyle, D. and Elgie, R. (2016), ‘Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power’, British Journal of Political Science, 46(4): 731–741.Google Scholar
Elgie, R. (1999), ‘The Politics of Semi-Presidentialism’, in R. Elgie (ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 1–21.Google Scholar
Elgie, R. (2001), ‘“Cohabitation”: Divided Government French-Style’, in R. Elgie (ed.), Divided Government in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 106–126.Google Scholar
Elgie, R. (2016), ‘Three Waves of Semi-Presidential Studies’, Democratization, 23(1): 49–70.Google Scholar
Europe Barometer (2004), CSPP School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Gherghina, S. and Miscoiu, S. (2013), ‘The Failure of Cohabitation: Explaining the 2007 and 2012 Institutional Crises in Romania’, East European Politics & Societies and Cultures, 27(4): 668–684.Google Scholar
Goldmann, K. (2005), ‘Appropriateness and Consequences: The Logic of Neo-Institutionalism’, Governance, 18(1): 35–52.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (1996) (ed.), The Theory of Institutional Design (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Hall, P.A. and Taylor, R.C.R. (1996), ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44(5): 936–957.Google Scholar
Köker, P. (2014), Veto et Peto: Patterns of Presidential Activism in Central and Eastern Europe (London: University College London).Google Scholar
Krupavičius, A. (2008), ‘Semi-Presidentialism in Lithuania: Origins, Development and Challenges’, in R. Elgie and S. Moestrup (eds), Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 65–84.Google Scholar
Krupavičius, A. (2013), ‘Lithuania’s President: A Formal and Informal Power’, in V. Hloušek et al., Presidents Above Parties? Presidents in Central and Eastern Europe: Their Formal Competencies and Informal Power (Brno: Masaryk University): 205–232.Google Scholar
Lazardeux, S.G. (2015), Cohabitation and Conflicting Politics in French Policymaking (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Maniokas, K. and Vilpišauskas, R. (2010), ‘National Coordination of European Policy in Lithuania: Analysis of a Double Transformation’ (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: The Free Press).Google Scholar
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (2006), ‘The Logic of Appropriateness’, in M. Moran, M. Rein and R.E. Goodin (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 689–708.Google Scholar
Matsuzato, K. and Gudžinskas, L. (2006), ‘An Eternally Unfinished Parliamentary Regime? Semipresidentialism as a Prism to View Lithuanian Politics’, Acta Slavica Iaponica, 23: 146–170.Google Scholar
Munkh-Erdene, L. (2010), ‘The Transformation of Mongolia’s Political System: From Semi-Parliamentary to Parliamentary?’, Asian Survey, 50(2): 311–334.Google Scholar
Norkus, Z. (2013), ‘Parliamentarism versus Semi-Presidentialism in the Baltic States: The Causes and Consequences of Differences in the Constitutional Framework’, Baltic Journal of Political Science, 2: 7–28.Google Scholar
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
North, D.C. (1993), ‘Institutions and Credible Commitment’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149(1): 11–23.Google Scholar
Passarelli, G. (2015) (ed.), The Presidentialization of Political Parties: Organizations, Institutions and Leaders (New York: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000), ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics’, American Political Science Review, 94(2): 251–267.Google Scholar
Protsyk, O. (2006), ‘Intra-Executive Competition between President and Prime Minister: Patterns of Institutional Conflict and Cooperation in Semi-Presidential Regimes’, Political Studies, 56(2): 219–241.Google Scholar
Raunio, T. (2012), ‘Semi-Presidentialism and European Integration: Lessons from Finland for Constitutional Design’, Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4): 567–584.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A. and Rockman, B.A. (2006) (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Samuels, D. and Shugart, M.S. (2010), Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1989), ‘Decision Rules, Decision Styles and Policy Choices’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2): 149–176.Google Scholar
Schleiter, P. and Morgan-Jones, E. (2009), ‘Citizens, Presidents, and Assemblies: The Study of Semi-Presidentialism Beyond Duverger and Linz’, British Journal of Political Science, 39(4): 871–892.Google Scholar
Scott, W.R. (2014), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, 4th edn (London: Sage).Google Scholar
Sedelius, T. (2006), The Tug-of-War between Presidents and Prime Ministers: Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe (Örebro: Örebro Studies in Political Science).Google Scholar
Sedelius, T. and Ekman, J. (2010), ‘Intra-Executive Conflict and Cabinet Instability: Effects of Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe’, Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics, 45(4): 505–530.Google Scholar
Sedelius, T. and Mashtaler, O. (2013), ‘Two Decades of Semi-Presidentialism: Issues of Intra-Executive Conflict in Central and Eastern Europe 1991–2011’, East European Politics, 29(2): 109–134.Google Scholar
Shen, Y. (2011), ‘Semi-Presidentialism in Taiwan: A Shadow of the Constitution of the Weimar Republic’, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 7(1): 135–152.Google Scholar
Shugart, M.S. and Carey, J.M. (1992), Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Talat-Kelpsa, L. (1999), ‘The Political Decision Making: Division of Authority within Government’, research report for the Conference: Lithuania: From Transition to Convergence, Vilnius, September.Google Scholar
Tavits, M. (2009), Presidents with Prime Ministers: Do Direct Elections Matter? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (1999), ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 369–404.Google Scholar
Urbanavicius, D. (1999), ‘Lithuania’, in R. Elgie (ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 150–169.Google Scholar
Weaver, R.K. and Rockman, B.A. (1993) (eds), Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution).Google Scholar