Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:53:42.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Troubled Marriage? Divided Minority Government, Cohabitation, Presidential Powers, President-Parliamentarism and Semi-Presidentialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2014

Young Hun Kim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although semi-presidentialism is a popular form of governance in new democracies, we have little empirical evidence supporting its popularity. In this study, I attempt to reassess democratic performance of new semi-presidential regimes from 1974 to 2009 as a function of four broadly cited risk factors: divided minority government, cohabitation, presidential powers and president-parliamentarism. The results are more encouraging than previous research has suggested. First, divided minority government is positively associated with higher levels of democracy, even though it, along with a strong presidency and president-parliamentarism, makes executive instability more likely. Second, perils of cohabitation are not substantiated with regard to executive instability and quality of democracy. Third, none of the caveats against semi-presidential systems makes them more vulnerable to democratic breakdown. However, a failure to check presidential powers appears to be a serious risk for semi-presidentialism. As presidents enjoy more powers, the levels of democracy tend to decrease. This finding has a substantive implication for countries that already practise semi-presidential governance or contemplate a move in that direction: checking presidential powers is critical to facilitate democratic consolidation in semi-presidentialism.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 652 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

*

Young Hun Kim is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at East Carolina University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Banks, A.S. (2011), ‘Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive’, Databanks International, www.databanksinternational.com.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, J.C. (2003), ‘Impeachment, Russian Style (1998–99)’, in J.C. Baumgartner and N. Kada (eds), Checking Executive Power: Presidential Impeachment in Comparative Perspective (Westport, CN: Praeger): 95–112.Google Scholar
Baylis, T.A. (1996), ‘Presidents Versus Prime Ministers: Shaping Executive Authority in Eastern Europe’, World Politics, 48(3): 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, N., Katz, J.N. and Tucker, R. (1998), ‘Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable’, American Journal of Political Science, 42(4): 1260–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beliaev, M.V. (2006), ‘Presidential Powers and Consolidation of New Postcommunist Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies, 39(3): 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, A. (2011), ‘Adam Carr’s Election Archive’, http://psephos.adam-carr.net.Google Scholar
Cheibub, J.A. and Chernykh, S. (2008), ‘Constitutions and Democratic Performance in Semi-Presidential Democracies’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 9: 269–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, J.A.Chernykh, S. (2009), ‘Are Semi-Presidential Constitutions Bad for Democratic Performance?’, Constitutional Political Economy, 20(3–4): 202–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, J.A., Gandhi, J. and Vreeland, J.R. (2010), ‘Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited’, Public Choice, 143(1–2): 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colton, T.J. and Skach, C. (2005), ‘The Russian Predicament’, Journal of Democracy, 16(3): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Election Results Archive (2011), ‘Election Results Archive’, http://cdp.binghamton.edu/era.Google Scholar
Elgie, R. (1999), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2008), ‘The Perils of Semi-Presidentialism: Are They Exaggerated?’, Democratization, 15(1): 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2010), ‘Semi-Presidentialism, Cohabitation and the Collapse of Electoral Democracies, 1990–2008’, Government and Opposition, 45(1): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2011a), ‘Varieties of Semi-Presidentialism and the Performance of Democracy’, in R. Elgie, Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (New York: Oxford University Press): 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2011b), ‘Varieties of Semi-Presidentialism and Democratic Survival’, in R. Elgie, Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (New York: Oxford University Press): 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2011c), Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2011d), ‘The Perils of Semi-Presidentialism?’, in R. Elgie, Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (New York: Oxford University Press): 1–18.Google Scholar
Elgie, R. (2011e), ‘Variation within Semi-Presidentialism’, in R. Elgie, Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (New York: Oxford University Press): 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2011f), ‘Conclusion’, in R. Elgie, Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance (New York: Oxford University Press): 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. (2013), ‘The Semi-Presidential One’, www.semipresidentialism.comGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R. and McMenamin, I. (2008), ‘Semi-Presidentialism and Democratic Performance’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 9: 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R.McMenamin, I. (2011), ‘Explaining the Onset of Cohabitation under Semi-Presidentialism’, Political Studies, 59(3): 616–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J.D. and Laitin, D.D. (2003), ‘Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War’, American Political Science Review, 97(1): 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, M.S. (2006), ‘Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies’, Journal of Democracy, 17(1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, B. (2003), Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, G. (2010), ‘The Origins of Institutional Crises in Latin America’, American Journal of Political Science, 54(3): 737–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, S. (1993), ‘The Postcommunist Presidency’, East European Constitutional Review, 2: 36–39.Google Scholar
Huntington, S.P. (1991), The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).Google Scholar
Jones, M.P. (1995), Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).Google Scholar
Kim, Y.H. (2014), ‘Impeachment and Presidential Politics in New Democracies’, Democratization, 21(3): 519–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.H. and Bahry, D. (2008), ‘Interrupted Presidencies in Third Wave Democracies’, Journal of Politics, 70(3): 807–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G. and Zeng, L. (2001), ‘Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data’, Political Analysis, 9(2): 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschke, L. (2007), ‘Semipresidentialism and the Perils of Power-Sharing in Neopatrimonial States’, Comparative Political Studies, 40: 1372–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoucq, F. (2005), ‘Constitutional Design and Democratic Performance in Latin America’, paper read at Arbeitskreis für Überseeische Verfassungsvergleichung, Mainz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LexisNexis Academic (2011), LexisNexis Academic, www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1992), ‘Introduction’, in A. Lijphart (ed.), Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (New York: Oxford University Press): 1–27.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1997), ‘Nomination: Trichotomy or Dichotomy?’, European Journal of Political Research, 31(1): 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (2004), ‘Constitutional Design for Divided Societies’, Journal of Democracy, 15(2): 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, J.J. (1990a), ‘The Perils of Presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy, 1(1): 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, J.J. (1990b), ‘The Virtues of Parliamentarism’, Journal of Democracy, 1(4): 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, J.J. (1994), ‘Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does it Make a Difference?’, in J.J. Linz and A. Valenzuela (eds), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspectives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press): 3–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, S. (1993), ‘Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination’, Comparative Political Studies, 26(2): 198–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, S. and Pérez-Liñán, A. (2005), ‘Latin American Democratization since 1978: Democratic Transitions, Breakdowns, and Erosions’, in F. Hagopian and S. Mainwaring (eds), The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks (New York: Cambridge University Press): 14–59.Google Scholar
Moestrup, S. (2007), ‘Semi-Presidentialism in Young Democracies: Help or Hindrance?’, in R. Elgie and S. Moestrup (eds), Semi-Presidentialism outside Europe: A Comparative Study (London: Routledge): 30–55.Google Scholar
Özbudun, E. and Gençkaya, Ö.F. (2009), Democratization and the Politics of Constitution Making in Turkey (New York: Central European University Press).Google Scholar
Pasquino, G. (1997), ‘Nomination: Semi-Presidentialism: A Political Model at Work’, European Journal of Political Research, 31(1): 128–137.Google Scholar
Pérez-Liñán, A. (2007), Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polity IV Project (2010a), ‘Polity IV Dataset’, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html.Google Scholar
Polity IV Project (2010b), ‘Polity IV Dataset Codebook’, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html.Google Scholar
Power, T.J. and Gasiorowski, M.J. (1997), ‘Institutional Design and Democratic Consolidation in the Third World’, Comparative Political Studies, 30(2): 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Protsyk, O. (2003), ‘Troubled Semi-Presidentialism: Stability of the Constitutional System and Cabinet in Ukraine’, Europe-Asia Studies, 55(7): 1077–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Protsyk, O. (2005), ‘Politics of Intraexecutive Conflict in Semipresidential Regimes in Eastern Europe’, East European Politics and Societies, 19(2): 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, A. and Limongi, F. (1997), ‘Modernization: Theories and Facts’, World Politics, 49(2): 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugaèiauskas, V. (1999), ‘Semi-Presidential Institutional Models and Democratic Stability: Comparative Analysis of Lithuania and Poland’, Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook, 1999: 1–26.Google Scholar
Reilly, B. (2011), ‘Semi-Presidentialism and Democratic Development in East Asia’, in R. Elgie, S. Moestrup and Y.-S. Wu (eds), Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan): 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roper, S.D. (2002), ‘Are All Semipresidential Regimes the Same? A Comparison of Premier-Presidential Regimes’, Comparative Politics, 34(3): 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rulers (2011), Rulers, www.rulers.org.Google Scholar
Schleiter, P. (2003), ‘Mixed Constitutions and Political Instability: Russia 1991–1993’, Democratization, 10(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 45(4): 505–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, M.S. and Carey, J.M. (1992), Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siaroff, A. (2003), ‘Comparative Presidencies: The Inadequacy of the Presidential, Semi-Presidential and Parliamentary Distinction’, European Journal of Political Research, 42(3): 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skach, C. (2005), Borrowing Constitutional Designs: Constitutional Law in Weimar Germany and the French Fifth Republic (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Stepan, A. and Skach, C. (1993), ‘Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism’, World Politics, 46(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J.B. (2000), Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
Valenzuela, A. (2004), ‘Latin American Presidencies Interrupted’, Journal of Democracy, 15(4): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasilyan, S. (1994), ‘Towards Constitutionalism for the Republic of Armenia’, Centro Argentino de Estudios Internacionales, http://edoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/HALCoRe_derivate_00001904/Towards%20Constitutionalism.pdf.Google Scholar
World Bank (2010), ‘World Development Indicators’, World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.Google Scholar
World Political Leaders (2011), ‘World Political Leaders 1945–2011’, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.Google Scholar