CHAPTER 9.docx

CHAPTER 9 Legislatures and Legislators The Functions of Legislatures The text discusses the legislative procedures in the context of the impeachment trials of former US President Donald J. Trump in 2019 and 2021. In 2019, Trump was charged with “abuse of power” and “obstruction” by the House of Repr...

CHAPTER 9 Legislatures and Legislators The Functions of Legislatures The text discusses the legislative procedures in the context of the impeachment trials of former US President Donald J. Trump in 2019 and 2021. In 2019, Trump was charged with “abuse of power” and “obstruction” by the House of Representatives, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi emphasizing the importance of democracy and the Constitution. The case was sent to the Senate in 2020, where Trump was acquitted. The second trial took place in February 2021, after Joe Biden assumed office. The impeachment process is highlighted as a constitutional method for the legislative branch to check the executive branch’s power. However, this is an extreme measure that has only been used three times in American history. The text also notes that not all legislatures have the power to remove a sitting head of state, and that legislatures play a crucial role globally, regardless of how their members are chosen. In 2020, there were legislative bodies in 240 countries, with about two-thirds using a unicameral system and the rest using a bicameral system. Most democratic nations use either a plurality/majority or a proportional representation process to select legislative members. Bicameral legislative systems, such as those in Canada, the United States, Australia, and Great Britain, typically use a combination of different systems. Including subnational elected bodies that represent smaller areas, like provincial and state legislatures, there are thousands of elected bodies worldwide. This makes legislative studies one of the oldest and most diverse branches of political science. Legislatures are essential institutions in political systems, particularly in democracies. They serve as crucial checks on the executive's power, preventing it from becoming overly concentrated and potentially oppressive. Legislatures uphold constitutions by drawing public attention to attempts to undermine them, as seen in the US impeachment process. If the executive tries to undermine or suspend the judicial system, the legislature can support the courts. Furthermore, legislatures are open to public scrutiny, with their deliberations often made available to the public in print, on television, or online (such as Hansards, transcripts of who says what in Parliament). The text suggests two methods for a comparative overview of legislatures. The first method involves examining institutional arrangements, such as debating chambers, standing committees, and staff members’ operations and communication with constituents. The second method focuses on the functions legislatures perform within their specific political systems. The text primarily focuses on the latter, with a particular emphasis on comparing parliamentary and presidential political systems, discussing their respective merits and challenges. The functions of parliaments can be divided into three broad areas: representational, governmental, and procedural. It is the representational function of parliaments to represent both citizens and particular groups in society. Governmental functions include forming governments, developing policy, holding the government accountable for its actions, and enhancing government communication with citizens. Finally, the procedural functions of legislatures include ritualizing conflict and ensuring transparency. Representation The original purpose of parliaments in Europe was to serve as a platform for different societal classes to express their views to the monarch on public matters. Initially, their role was largely to consult with monarchs, often merely approving their decisions without much substantive involvement. Parliaments did not decide policy or impose their will on monarchs. However, over time, they gained more authority as rulers began to consult them on issues like taxation for public works and, most importantly, raising armies. As a result, not only did the European state grow in response to the needs of war, but the role of parliaments also expanded as they gained the power to limit the monarchs' ability to wage war. The legitimacy of parliaments hinges on their ability to represent the wider society. Over time, various dimensions of representativeness have been proposed, but these are challenging to reconcile due to the interplay between the composition of parliaments and the electoral systems they are based on. States with different histories and priorities may develop different institutional solutions to the same problem. While some states have organically developed their institutions, many countries have had their legislatures imposed on them through colonization or conflict. For instance, Western settler states like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, and other former British colonies have modeled their institutions on the Westminster model, unlike French, Spanish, and Dutch colonies. The text questions the nature of representation in legislative bodies. It asks whether deputies should be numerically representative of specific societal sections, as was initially the case with the UK’s House of Lords and House of Commons. It also questions whether the number of female representatives should correspond to the female population and how ethnic minorities and Indigenous peoples should be represented. The text notes that in the US Congress, Native Americans, African Americans, and Latinx people are under-represented, with disparities less significant than those for women. For instance, the 117th Congress, elected in 2020, had female representation at 25% for the Senate and 23% for the House, despite women making up over 50% of the population. The 117th Congress was the most racially diverse in US history, but still not representative of the country's demographics. In 2020, 23% of federal lawmakers were non-white, less than their population share. African Americans and Native Americans were represented in the House roughly equal to their population shares (13% and 1% respectively). However, Hispanic people and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders were underrepresented (9% and 3% in Congress vs 18% and 6% in the population respectively). Non-Hispanic whites were overrepresented in Congress at 77%, compared to 61% of the population. (Schaeffer, 2021) Under the Liberal government, Canada's federal cabinet has become more diverse. In 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau formed a cabinet that reflected Canada's diversity, with 50% women, two Indigenous ministers, four South Asian ministers, and the country's first Muslim cabinet minister. After the 2019 election, the cabinet continued to maintain gender parity with 18 women ministers and eight ministers from ethnic minorities, but the number of Indigenous ministers reduced to one. (MacCharles, Whittington, & Campion-Smith, 2015; Prime Minister’s Office, 2020) KEY QUOTE BOX 9.1 Why Women Should Be Represented in Politics Hughes and Paxton present arguments for women’s representation in politics, divided into justice and utility: Justice arguments: Women constitute about half of the population in every country, so they should also be half of elected and appointed leaders (Hughes & Paxton, 2019, p. 35). Utility arguments: Women’s presence in politics is expected to change politics or society in some way. This could be improving the quality of deliberation, transforming the kinds of laws that are passed, or signaling to young women that politics is not solely a “man’s game” (Hughes & Paxton, 2019, p. 35). A final utility argument suggests that women’s representation may improve the quality of political decision making. Including women doubles the pool of talent for leadership, increases the diversity of ideas, values, priorities, and political styles, and makes political decision making more flexible and capable of change (Hughes & Paxton, 2019, p. 38). Efforts have been made in recent years to align the composition of legislatures more closely with the population, particularly regarding gender. By 2019, over 60 countries had implemented mandatory gender quotas or reserved seats for women. Kittilson notes that women's election to office can alter societal attitudes and perceptions about women's role in politics, especially when women hold highly visible offices. This can enhance women's empowerment and political efficacy. O’Brien and Piscopo theorize that the impact of increased women's representation can be measured in five dimensions: division of labor within the institution, the symbols and ideologies shaping its work, the gendered nature of interactions, the gendered identities carried within the institution, and the institution's organizational logic. (Kittilson, 2019, p. 25; O’Brien & Piscopo, 2019, p. 60) KEY CONCEPT BOX 9.2 Women and Representation: But What Type? Hanna Pitkin’s (1967) work distinguishes between descriptive and substantive representation of women. Descriptive representation refers to the number of women in a legislature, regardless of their political views. Substantive representation, on the other hand, refers to the politics of the representatives. Manon Tremblay and Réjean Pelletier argue for the “substantive conception” of representation, stating that women, due to their unique socialization, values, and life experiences, bring unique perspectives into politics and would support women’s issues. However, they argue that it’s not enough to have more women in Parliament; the key is to have more feminists who promote policies valuing women in society. They note that gender and feminist viewpoints don’t always correlate, as seen in the US Congress where some male Democrats are more “feminist” in their voting behavior than Republican women. They conclude that the Canadian Parliament needs not just more women, but more feminists. This challenges the belief that simply electing more women will improve women’s social or economic positions in society. (Pitkin, 1967; Tremblay & Pelletier, 2000). Tremblay's recent work explores the concept of "feminizing" parliaments. This involves shifting away from masculine political cultures and policymaking methods and increasing female representation. (Tremblay, 2012). Tremblay is also interested in the political exclusion of LGBTQ2S+ individuals. She suggests that politics is not only gendered but also heterosexualized. She uses the term “gender-sexualized” to describe how political cultures often favor male attributes. This can lead to the electorate perceiving lesbian politicians, who are often stereotyped as masculine, as more competent than gay men, often depicted as effeminate, in representing traditionally masculine topics like military issues, finance, and foreign affairs. (Tremblay, 2019, p. 107) Quotas can sometimes be effective, but they don't always achieve their goals. For instance, despite having gender parity quotas for 15 years, women made up only 26% of legislators in France's National Assembly in 2019. Brazil, which introduced a 25% quota in 1997 and increased it to 30% in 2000, saw women hold no more than 10% of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies after four elections under the quota system. (Hughes & Paxton, 2019, p. 46) To address the issue of gender inequality in political representation, one solution proposed by former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell is to have two Members of Parliament (MPs) per constituency, one male and one female. This approach aims to ensure equal gender representation regardless of voter bias or women’s participation rates. This two-vote system is already in use in Peru and has shown positive results in improving women’s representation, as noted by Tremblay (Tremblay, 2012, p. 245). In the 2019 Canadian federal elections, women made up 37.5% of the House of Commons with 98 women elected. Therefore, adopting a similar model to Peru’s, as suggested by Campbell, could potentially enhance gender representation in Canadian politics. However, it’s important to note that the implementation and success of such a system would depend on various factors including societal attitudes, political structures, and legislative support. (Global News, 2014; Tremblay, 2012) There is still a long way to go before such quotas will be achieved (see Box 9.3). Nevertheless, the movement for quotas is likely to increase pressure to increase recruitment of people from other groups in society that are also regularly under-represented. In that case, at least in democracies, legislatures will undergo major changes in the coming decades. KEY CONCEPT BOX 9.3 The State of Gender Representation in 2020 Only 24.9 per cent of all national parliamentarians were female. Ten women served as head of state and 10 served as head of government. There were also 57 women speakers of parliament. Rwanda had the highest number of women parliamentarians worldwide. Women there have won 61.3 per cent of seats in the lower house, followed by Cuba at 53.2 per cent in their unicameral legislature. Spain had the highest percentage of women cabinet ministers at 66.7 per cent. Globally, women held 1451 ministerial portfolios in 190 countries, the most popular being Social Affairs (112), Family/Children/Youth/Elderly/Disabled (112), and Environment/Natural Resources/Energy (103). Predictably, another common portfolio was Women’s Affairs/Gender Equality (80). Much less common portfolios were Justice (40), Defence and Veteran Affairs (22), and Transport (13). Wide variations remain in the average percentages of women parliamentarians in each region, across all chambers (single, lower, and upper houses). As of January 2020, these were Nordic countries, 43.9 per cent; Americas, 31.1 per cent; Europe excluding Nordic countries, 28.7 per cent; sub-Saharan Africa, 24.4 per cent; Asia, 20.5 per cent; the Middle East and North Africa, 17.5 per cent; and the Pacific, 16.6 per cent. More women in politics does not necessarily correlate with lower levels of corruption, as is often assumed. Rather, democratic, and transparent politics is correlated with low levels of corruption, and the two create an enabling environment for more women to participate (UN Women, 2020). If “representation” is understood as expressing constituents’ views and communicating with authorities, the personal characteristics of representatives may not be crucial. The extent to which representatives should reflect the community’s views versus their personal opinions is debatable. Edmund Burke argued that MPs should exercise their individual judgment. This model is still followed in the British Parliament. Some parliamentary systems have adopted the principle of recall, allowing voters to replace or re-elect representatives who fail to represent their views adequately. This principle, introduced by the French National Assembly post the French Revolution, is now part of the socialist tradition. Deputies in communist and some socialist states like China and Cuba can be recalled if voters believe they have failed to fulfill their mandate. (Burke, 1996) Parliamentary immunity is a principle adopted by many states to protect the freedom of speech of their parliamentary representatives. This immunity shields deputies from prosecution or libel proceedings for statements made in the course of their parliamentary duties. It’s intended to ensure that representatives can speak freely and fulfill their roles without fear of legal repercussions. However, this immunity can also be exploited. Occasionally, individuals facing potential prosecution for criminal acts may seek election to parliament. Once elected, their parliamentary immunity can serve as a shield, preventing or at least delaying their prosecution. It’s important to note that the rules and extent of parliamentary immunity can vary significantly between different jurisdictions and political systems. In most parliamentary systems, there’s a direct link between an elected representative and a specific district within the country. However, in countries like Israel, Peru, and the Netherlands, the entire voter population forms a single national constituency. Voters choose from lists of candidates offered by different parties, ensuring that those elected represent the people’s preferences proportionately. However, this system has its critics. In Israel, the proportional system is said to give excessive power to small parties, leading to constraints in executive policymaking. The electoral threshold for party status was increased from 1% to 3.25% in 2014 to address this issue. Despite this, the proportional system can make it difficult to form a government due to the large number of parties competing for influence. This was evident in 2019 and 2020 when Israel had three elections because no coalition of parties could form a government. In April 2019, 12 parties gained seats in the 120-member Knesset, with the Likud and Kahol Lavan parties gaining 35 seats each. However, Likud was unable to form a governing coalition, leading to a snap election in September. Again, no party could build a large enough coalition to govern, leading to another election in March 2020. Eventually, in May, Likud and Kahol Lavan agreed to share power in a coalition government, with each party leader taking a turn as prime minister. (Beauchamp, 2019; Lis and Levinson, 2020) The text discusses the impact of different electoral systems, specifically plurality and proportional representation systems, on political outcomes. The combination of a single national constituency, proportional representation, and a low threshold for parties to gain seats is highlighted. In Israel, this threshold is only 3.25% of the popular vote. However, the text points out that a low threshold does not always lead to political fragmentation and polarization, as evidenced by the Netherlands, which has an even lower threshold of 0.67% but does not exhibit the same level of political fragmentation as Israel. The relationship between representatives and their constituents in specific territories is crucial for the legitimacy of the legislative branch. This brings up several questions: Constituency Size: There’s a debate about the optimal size of constituencies and how similar they should be in size. Redrawing Boundaries: As citizens frequently move, the responsibility of redrawing constituency boundaries becomes important. In most European states, this task is assigned to public officials. In Canada, Elections Canada, an independent body, is responsible for drawing boundaries and overseeing elections. These aspects play a significant role in ensuring fair representation and maintaining the democratic process. In the United States, the boundaries of districts for the House of Representatives are determined by each state’s legislature. They interpret federal census data, collected every 10 years, and redraw electoral districts accordingly. This process can be influenced by the political party in power in the legislature, leading to a practice known as gerrymandering. Gerrymandering involves two strategies: Packing: This involves concentrating the opposition party’s supporters into as few districts as possible to limit the number of seats they can win. Cracking: This involves dispersing the opposition party’s supporters across many districts to prevent them from gaining a majority in any of them. These practices can significantly influence the political landscape and representation in the House of Representatives. The text discusses the issue of unequal representation in the U.S. Senate due to the varying sizes of constituencies. The U.S. Constitution grants each state, regardless of its population size, two senators. This results in smaller states like Wyoming having the same representation as larger states like California, despite California’s population being 72 times larger. Consequently, smaller and often more rural states have a disproportionate impact on Senate voting. The text suggests that this situation is unlikely to change, as smaller states can mobilize enough votes to prevent any constitutional amendment aimed at altering this representation. The text discusses the representation and reform of the Canadian Senate: Representation: Prince Edward Island, despite its small population, has significant representation in the Senate. Unlike the U.S. where senators are elected, Canadian senators are appointed by the prime minister, leading to a lack of direct public accountability. Senate Reform: All major parties have championed Senate reform, which became a key issue in the 2015 federal election. The NDP proposed abolishing the Senate, requiring a constitutional amendment, which other major parties refused to consider. Nonpartisan Senators: Prime Minister Trudeau began appointing nonpartisan senators in 2016, selecting 22 prominent Canadians not affiliated with the Liberal Party. Nonpartisan refers to not being affiliated with, supporting, or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like. It implies objectivity and a lack of bias towards any political party or group. Senate Groups: As of 2021, Canadian senators are part of four groups: the Independent Senators Group (ISG), the Canadian Senators, the Progressive Senate Group, and the Conservative Party. The ISG is the largest group with 41 members, followed by the Conservatives with 20. There is no longer a Liberal caucus in the Senate. In summary, the text highlights the unique aspects of the Canadian Senate, the ongoing efforts for its reform, and the shift towards nonpartisan representation. Governmental The “governmental” functions of legislatures are primarily concerned with forming governments, formulating policy, and implementing it. Presidentialism versus Parliamentarianism The text discusses two different systems of government: Parliamentarianism: In this system, the parliament has the final say in choosing the head of government. The head of government is usually decided by the legislature itself. Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK operate on this principle. Presidentialism: In contrast, countries like the U.S. follow a system where the legislative and executive branches are separate. The legislature does not participate in the selection of the president, who is elected by the entire country and thus has a strong mandate. In summary, the text highlights the fundamental differences between parliamentary and presidential systems in terms of how the head of government is chosen. In parliamentary systems, the prime minister is typically the leader of the party that can secure a majority in parliament. When a single party holds the majority, as in Canada after the 2015 elections, the choice of prime minister is straightforward. However, when no party has a majority, as in the UK in 2010, parties may form a coalition government. An example is the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in 2010, led by Conservative leader David Cameron. A similar situation occurred in British Columbia in 2017, where the NDP, with Green Party support, formed a government under John Horgan. Horgan later called a snap election in October 2020, resulting in the NDP forming a majority government. In situations where no party has a majority, the party with the most seats forms a minority government, as the Liberal Party did under Justin Trudeau in 2019. Such governments are vulnerable to defeat if opposition parties unite against them, as happened to the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark in 1979. However, minority governments can survive for extended periods if they are cautious about their policy choices. Given the political leanings of the other parties, such as the left-of-centre NDP and the socially liberal but separatist Bloc Québécois, the Liberals may be able to maintain governance for a while. The text discusses the dynamics of minority and coalition governments in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany: Canada: Stephen Harper maintained two successive minority governments from 2006 to 2011, facilitated by a divided opposition, including the Bloc Québécois, which aimed for Quebec’s separation from Canada. New Zealand, Australia, and Germany: Coalition governments, consisting of two or more parties, are common. After the 2017 election in New Zealand, the Labour Party, under Jacinda Ardern, formed a coalition with New Zealand First, supported by the Green Party. Both Labour and NZF MPs gained cabinet positions. After the 2014 elections, an informal coalition was formed with the National Party and three minor parties. In October 2020, Labour formed a majority government. In summary, the text highlights the strategies and complexities of forming and maintaining minority and coalition governments in different parliamentary systems. The text discusses the comparative advantages of parliamentarianism and presidentialism from the perspective of political scientist Juan Linz. Linz argues that parliamentarianism is more beneficial for democracy due to its flexibility, which contributes to political stability. He bases his argument largely on the experiences of Latin American countries, which have seen significant political instability under predominantly presidential regimes. In a presidential system, the executive branch derives its power from a mandate from the entire population. However, legislators also claim to represent the people’s will, leading to competing claims of legitimacy between the president and the legislature. Even when they agree on policy goals, this can lead to a “zero-sum” approach to policymaking, where each side strives for a winner-take-all outcome. In contrast, a parliamentary system, by its nature, requires more consensus-building and can be more stable and less prone to such conflicts. However, the “better” system can depend on various factors, including the specific historical, cultural, and social context of a country. Linz (1992) posits that parliamentary systems foster compromise and discipline among politically diverse actors. These systems incentivize negotiation and reconciliation of individual and national mandates and maintain discipline by offering ministerial promotions to those who support government policies. The transition from authoritarianism to democracy in post-Franco Spain in 1975 exemplifies this argument. Conversely, democratic transitions in Latin America’s presidential systems have been less successful. In the early 2000s, the Philippine president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, reportedly favored the parliamentary system. Cheibub (2007) posits that the perceived instability of presidential systems compared to parliamentary ones is not due to the systems themselves, but rather the political contexts they operate within. He observes a pattern in Latin America where authoritarian military regimes are often succeeded by democratic presidential systems. If these transitions are unsuccessful, Cheibub argues it’s more likely due to a deep-seated crisis of authority rather than the chosen system. Therefore, the supposed superiority of parliamentary systems over presidential ones may not be as definitive as commonly believed. In practice, political parties are finding ways to merge the principles of wider membership involvement and leadership selection. This is evident in the growing trend of political parties involving their broader membership base in the selection of party leaders. For instance, major British parties have shifted from only allowing parliamentary caucus members to vote for party leaders to inviting all party members to participate in the selection process. However, it’s worth noting that votes from different membership sections may carry different weights. Similarly, political parties in other countries like Canada and Germany typically elect their leaders at conventions. These conventions are attended by delegates who are chosen by party members, thus ensuring a democratic process that involves the wider party membership. This approach synthesizes the principles of individual representation and collective decision-making. France and other countries, including Russia, have adopted a hybrid political system. In this system, the president nominates the prime minister, who must have the confidence of the parliament. If a vote of no-confidence is passed against the prime minister, general elections are called. This system was designed to empower the prime minister and prevent infighting among small parties, a problem prevalent until 1958 in France’s Fourth Republic. However, it can lead to rivalry between the president and prime minister, especially if the latter aspires to the presidency. The situation is further complicated when the president and prime minister belong to different parties, leading to periods of “cohabitation” where intense rivalry can paralyze decision-making. CASE STUDY BOX 9.4 Presidentialism in the Philippines The Philippines has operated under a presidential system since 1935, when it received increased autonomy as a U.S. colony, and gained independence in 1946. While it has largely been a democracy, it was under the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos from 1972 to 1986, who imposed martial law when constitutionally barred from a third term. Marcos’ rule, largely supported by the U.S., was a notable exception. The current system, closely modeled after the U.S., features weak political parties and election campaigns that focus more on individual candidates than the parties they represent. A significant issue in the Philippines’ democracy is pervasive corruption. In 2020, the country ranked 99th out of 180 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Elected representatives are not immune to this corruption. A distinctive aspect of Filipino politics is the endurance of political dynasties, where family members pass on their positions in local councils and the House of Representatives to their kin. During the 1990s, there were proposals to introduce a parliamentary system in the Philippines. The rationale was that it would diminish presidential power, a significant concern following the Marcos regime, and lower the risk of destabilizing the system through impeachment attempts against an unpopular president. In 2005, President Gloria Arroyo, herself a dynastic politician, proposed transitioning from a presidential to a parliamentary system. However, this plan did not materialize, and the presidential system remained intact after her second term ended in 2010. Her successor, Benigno Aquino III, another dynastic politician, took office. His father, a renowned senator, was assassinated by Marcos, and his mother, Corazon Aquino, served as the country’s first female president from 1986 to 1992 following Marcos’ overthrow. The alternative to dynastic politics in the Philippines, represented by President Rodrigo Duterte since 2016, has not necessarily led to more democracy. Duterte, a former mayor and known for his nationalist, populist, and hardline stance on crime, initiated a “drug war” in Davao City, leading to the deaths of over 1400 people, primarily petty criminals, drug users, and street children. As president, Duterte has continued his hardline approach, resulting in thousands of extra-judicial killings. In 2019, there were approximately 23,000 “homicides under investigation.” In 2020, Duterte was investigated by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. In some countries, the terms of office for directly elected heads of state and parliaments differ, leading to situations where different parties control these two institutions. This has been observed in Taiwan and South Korea. A similar situation has been seen in the United States, particularly since World War II. From 1954 to 1994, the Democrats largely dominated the House of Representatives, while the Republicans controlled the presidency for longer periods. This often resulted in a “gridlock” in Washington, where legislative progress is stalled due to conflicting interests between the two parties. This gridlock was notably problematic during President Obama’s term, with a Republican-dominated House and Senate opposing a Democratic presidency. The situation intensified during President Trump’s administration, especially after 2018 when the House was controlled by Democrats and the Senate by Republicans. This led to a significant standoff during the impeachment trial in 2020, with the House and Senate at odds over the future of the presidency. This illustrates how divergent terms of office and party control can lead to political stalemate and conflict. In political systems where the president nominates the prime minister, both roles can claim a mandate from the people, despite the constitutionally greater powers of the president. This means that both can appeal to public opinion to back their views, leading to complex and often intense relations between the two offices. To mitigate this, some countries have amended their constitutions to align the terms of office for both roles. For instance, in 2000, France revised its constitution so that both the president and the prime minister serve identical five-year terms. This change was aimed at reducing potential conflicts and power struggles between the two roles. A similar amendment was made in Taiwan in 2008. By synchronizing the terms of office, it’s expected to create a more harmonious relationship between the president and the prime minister. Legislation Legislatures in democracies primarily function to shape and pass legislation, a process that is often influenced by legal considerations such as judicial review and international law. This explains the high proportion of elected representatives with legal backgrounds. For instance, in the U.S. in 2019, 33% of House members and 49% of senators were lawyers. In the UK, 116 out of 650 MPs were lawyers in 2015, though this number dropped to 66 by 2017. Meanwhile, the number of MPs from business or commerce professions increased to 155. The representation of trade unions, agriculture, and manual labor professions has been declining. In practice, the executive branch is often the main initiator of legislation. This holds true even in the U.S., where the executive must find congressional allies to sponsor their legislative proposals. For EU member states, the situation is more complex as they must enact national laws to enforce decisions made in Brussels. The German government estimates that about 50% of business regulations stem from agreements in Brussels. Thus, national legislatures today primarily react to initiatives originating elsewhere. Ensuring Accountability A key function of legislatures in democracies is to hold the government accountable for its actions, ensuring it fulfills its electoral promises. This accountability strengthens the incentive for governments to make credible commitments and increases the chance of a government being replaced if it fails to deliver. However, in authoritarian regimes, legislatures have less power. For instance, China’s National People’s Congress, with over 3000 delegates, meets only two weeks a year and serves a largely symbolic role, with its activities appearing to be mere rubber-stamping without real power. Parliaments aren’t the sole entities holding the executive branch accountable. In many democracies, the media also plays a significant role in this process. Additionally, there are internal institutions within the executive branch that oversee the actions of other executive agencies. This is referred to as “horizontal accountability” by O’Donnell (2003), contrasting with the “vertical accountability” provided by parliaments. Examples of such institutions include the National Audit Office in the UK and the Office of the Auditor General in Canada, both of which monitor government spending. These institutions collectively enhance government accountability and often collaborate in their efforts. Formation of Public Attitudes The passage discusses the role of legislatures in shaping public opinion and setting the agenda for public debate. Here’s a breakdown: Formation of Public Opinion: Legislatures contribute to the formation of public opinion. This is an extension of their representative role, where they not only provide a forum for discussion but also lead in forming public opinion. Setting the Agenda: Legislatures play a crucial role in setting the agenda for public debate. They decide which issues are important and should be discussed publicly. Media and Mass Communication: In the era of mass communications, media plays a significant role in informing the public about the issues of the day. However, there are issues, such as terrorism and gun control, where parliamentary debates have played a key role. Coverage of Debates: Debates in parliament and in parliamentary committees are regularly reported in the media. In North America, networks like C-SPAN and CPAC offer full-time coverage of the US Congress and Canadian Parliament. Use of Internet: Some legislatures, like the German Bundestag, the Dutch Staten-Generaal, and the Scottish Parliament, have used the Internet to stimulate public debate over current affairs. Deliberative Democracy: The passage also mentions the concept of deliberative democracy, which is a more reflexive approach to policy-making that involves the society at large. However, such efforts seem to have had only limited success. In summary, while the role of parliaments in forming public opinion and setting the agenda for public debate has diminished with the rise of mass media, they still play a crucial role in certain issues. They also use modern technologies like the Internet to engage the public in debates over current affairs. However, efforts to develop a more reflexive approach to policymaking, such as deliberative democracy, have had limited success. Another example of how legislatures can stimulate public debate can be observed in Sweden, where members of parliament regularly meet with advisory commissions to create legislative proposals. This practice constrains both the executive and the sovereignty of parliament but helps to ensure that a wider variety of views is represented in the legislative process, which should lead to better legislation (Olson, 1994, p. 135). Procedural Functions Finally, there are two procedural functions that legislatures perform. Ritualizing Conflict Parliamentary activities serve to ritualize conflict and legitimize diverse views by providing a safe forum for expressing differing opinions. This is evident even in countries like Iran, where only religious parties are allowed. Critics argue that parliaments can exacerbate societal divisions by providing a platform for dissent. Westminster-type parliaments, such as those in Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, formalize the role of the opposition, reinforcing the idea that keeping the government in check is a patriotic duty that strengthens democracy. The adversarial nature of these parliaments is emphasized by the seating arrangements, with the government and opposition facing each other. In some countries, legislators use media coverage of their debates to dramatize differences and establish a partisan image to aid re-election. For instance, in Taiwan, legislators have been known to throw lunch boxes at each other. We could respond to the critics by noting that all societies have a plurality of opinions on any issue. In fact, when dissension is particularly extreme, parliaments can help to resolve disputes that might otherwise take a more violent turn. In that sense they “routinize” conflict, and even though legislators sometimes use parliamentary debate to rouse public opinion in support of extremist goals, this does not mean that parliaments by nature manufacture conflict; often, they can tame its excesses. Ensuring Transparency Parliaments are generally committed to openness and publicizing issues and policies. A parliament that kept its deliberations secret—as the Supreme Soviet did in Stalin’s time—would make no sense—its value would be purely symbolic. Authoritarian regimes may publish only edited versions of parliamentary debates, but even this help to publicize important issues and make the policy-making process more open—though full verbatim transcripts of deliberations are obviously preferable. By making the resolution of disagreements in society more open, transparency promotes social stability. Types of Legislatures Legislatures vary considerably, not only in their powers but also in their relations with the surrounding political and societal structures. Mezey (1990) some time ago produced an influential typology of legislatures to identify the range of their possible operations. He proposed a five-part classification based on the ability of a legislature to stand up to the executive that remains persuasive: 1. An active legislature is at the centre of the political system and has the power to say “no” to the executive when necessary. The US Congress is the prime example. 2. A reactive legislature has less power to withstand the government, but it can set firm parameters within which the government has to act, and it can impose sanctions on a government that infringes those parameters. Examples include the House of Commons in Canada and the UK, the House of Representatives in Australia, and New Zealand, as well as parliaments in France, Germany, India, Sweden, and Japan. 3. A vulnerable legislature is much more compliant, in part because of local political cultures that tolerate legislators’ pursuit of their own material interests. Examples include the Philippines and Italy (the latter’s legislature has been particularly vulnerable because of the difficulties of forming stable coalition governments). 4. A marginal legislature performs important legislative functions but has at best tentative support from social elites. At times, the executive has decided that it can do without the legislature, and the latter has been unable to resist. Pakistan, Peru, Nigeria, and Russia under Putin are examples. 5. A minimal legislature meets rarely and serves mainly to symbolize national unity and regime legitimacy; it does not exercise any effective check on the government. This was the case in several communist states and is still largely true of the National People’s Congress in China and the Vietnamese National Assembly. The Structure of Legislatures As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, roughly two-thirds of the world’s legislatures are unicameral in structure: That is, they consist of just one chamber or house. Unicameralism is particularly common among smaller, more unitary states. Bicameralism (having two chambers) has generally been the choice of larger, more complex nation-states and for that reason will be the focus of the discussion below. We will also look at committees—a structural feature that is central to the way parliaments work. Bicameral Systems The text discusses the variety and complexity of bicameral systems, which are legislative bodies divided into two chambers. The powers of these chambers vary widely, with no standard formula. The level of accountability to voters also differs among these systems. In the late 1990s, out of 61 second chambers worldwide, only 19 were fully composed of directly elected members, 15 were a mix of elected and appointed members, and 27 had no directly elected members, including the Senate of Canada. Despite these categories, there is still significant diversity in how second chambers are constituted. The text suggests that there are three general reasons for dividing legislatures into an upper and lower house. The first reason for separating the legislature into an upper and lower house is tradition. Historically, bicameralism allowed for distinct representation of different societal groups, typically aristocrats in one chamber and common people in the other. Most systems that were originally bicameral have maintained this structure, even amidst societal modernization. However, there are exceptions. New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden abolished their second chambers and adopted unicameralism in 1950, 1953, and 1970, respectively. The second reason for having an upper house in a bicameral system is often related to federalism. An upper house composed of representatives from provinces, territories, or states ensures that these entities’ interests are considered by the national government, regardless of their population size. For instance, in Canada, the Senate provides regional representation and gives smaller provinces and territories a larger influence on legislation than their population would typically allow. The fairness of this system is subjective and can vary based on individual perceptions. The third reason for having an upper house in a bicameral system is the expectation that it will lead to better legislation. This expectation is based on two principles. The first is the principle of “redundancy,” which allows for a second review of a particular law, providing a “sober second thought.” For instance, in Canada, the Senate re-examines, debates, amends, approves, or rejects legislation from the House of Commons. The second principle is that satisfying two chambers increases the likelihood that the final legislation will represent the broader population’s wishes. This is especially true if the two chambers are elected or selected based on different principles or at different times. Tsebelis and Money (1997) argue that the number of parliamentary chambers doesn’t significantly impact the relationship between the legislature and the executive, but it does influence the legislative process. Most constitutions grant more power to one chamber, particularly concerning control over the government budget. For instance, in Canada and Britain, the House of Commons has more budgetary control than the upper house. Italy is an exception where the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies have equal powers, often leading to governmental paralysis. However, this system has effectively prevented the resurgence of a fascist dictatorship. Even where one chamber is more powerful than the other, however, compromise is often necessary to get a bill passed into law. How compromise is achieved will also affect the legislative outcome. Must the bill be considered by a joint committee of both houses? By full sessions of each chamber? In either case, what kind of majority is needed? All these factors make a difference. Committees Legislators typically spend most of their time working in committees rather than in full parliamentary sessions. Detailed examination of proposed legislation is often conducted in temporary or ad hoc committees. Parliaments usually establish permanent committees to scrutinize individual ministries, often interrogating ministers and senior officials and sometimes holding inquiries into policy issues. Experienced committee members may have extensive knowledge about specific policy areas. For legislators from non-governing parties, committee work provides opportunities to critique government policies and suggest alternatives. It also helps parliament fulfill its role in shaping public opinion and increasing policy-making visibility. While some parliaments, like Germany and Sweden, allow committees to propose legislation, this is not the case in the Westminster system. In France, a few large, permanent committees divide into ad hoc committees to consider specific bills. KEY QUOTE BOX 9.5 Qualifications for the US Senate According to the U.S. Constitution, a person must meet certain criteria to be a Senator: they must be at least 30 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years, and be a resident of the state they represent at the time of election. These qualifications were established during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, where delegates, influenced by British and state precedents, decided on age, citizenship, and residency requirements for Senators. However, they rejected proposed qualifications based on religion and property. In Westminster-style democracies, elected legislators are theoretically representative of the general population. However, in practice, they tend to be predominantly white, male, better educated than the average citizen, and socio-economically part of the middle class. This holds true even for those representing left-leaning parties. The text suggests that some Western states are developing what Gaetano Mosca, an Italian elitism theorist, termed a "political class." This group is self-interested, self-aware, and relies on state resources for its economic and moral status. Journalist Peter Oborne argues that this concept didn't align well with the reality of Mosca's time (late 19th century) due to significant external checks on political figures and the state's resources not being easily manipulated for their benefit. However, Oborne asserts that the "Political Class" has now seized control in Britain. This view is echoed by two Italian journalists in relation to Italian politics. Academics have also engaged with the concept of a “political class.” According to Borchert and Zeiss (2003, p. 6), the term refers to a class that “lives off politics” and acts as a “class for itself.” This is in part what Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign promise to “drain the swamp” was all about. He argued that political elites in Washington, DC, including elected politicians and lobbyists, were controlling the country and not the average voter. Borchert and his colleagues discuss the rise of political professionals in OECD democracies who specialize in winning elections and have no other career. Examples include: Joseph Biden: First elected to the US Senate in 1972, re-elected six times, served as vice-president under Barack Obama in 2009 and 2013, was the Democratic nominee for president in 2020, and is now the president of the United States. Stanley Knowles: Served as a Member of Parliament (MP) in Canada from 1942 to 1984, with a four-year absence from Parliament from 1958 to 1962. Andrew Scheer: A former Conservative Party leader who has spent almost his entire adult life in politics. He grew up in Ottawa, worked as a political staffer at the University of Ottawa, moved to Regina, and ran as a federal MP in 2004 at the age of 25. In 2011, he became the youngest speaker of the House of Commons and then became the leader of the opposition at the age of 38. Despite claiming to have worked as an insurance broker, it was revealed that he was never a provincially licensed agent in Saskatchewan and had only worked briefly as a clerk with no professional credentials when he stood for Parliament. In Japan and Ireland, a significant percentage of national parliament members are the offspring of former legislators from the same constituency. In 2003, 28% of deputies to the lower house of the Diet in Japan were such individuals, while in Ireland, the figure fluctuated between 22% and 25% from 1992 to 2002. This trend suggests the emergence of a "political class," although it doesn't appear to be as prevalent in other countries. List of Key Terms Bicameralism-A system of government in which the legislature is divided between two separate chambers. Examples include Canada (House of Commons and Senate), the United States (House of Representatives and Senate), and the United Kingdom (House of Commons and House of Lords). Caucus-a meeting or grouping of supporters or members of a specific political party or movement. The term “caucus” is used in different contexts and can have slightly different meanings depending on the political system and culture. Cohabitation-in the context of a political system refers to a situation where the president and the prime minister belong to different political parties. This can occur in countries with a semi-presidential system, like France and Russia, where the president nominates the prime minister, but the latter must have the confidence of the parliament. During periods of cohabitation, the president and prime minister may have differing political agendas due to their party affiliations. This can lead to intense rivalry and potentially paralyze decision-making, as each tries to advance their own party's policies. It's a unique challenge in these hybrid political systems and requires careful negotiation and compromise to ensure effective governance. Executive power-refers to the authority given to a person or group to administrate and manage an organization. In the context of government, it is commonly used to describe that part of government which executes the law. In parliamentary systems, the executive forms the government, and its members generally belong to the political party that controls the legislature or "parliament". Gerrymandering-is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that favors one political party, often through strategies such as "packing" and "cracking" the opposition party's supporters across districts. Legislative branch-a part of the government that has the power to make laws. In a system of government that separates powers, such as in Canada and the United States, the legislative branch is distinct from the executive and judicial branches. Parliamentarianism-The principle that governments are formed by prime ministers (as opposed to heads of state) and are therefore primarily responsible to parliament. Proportional representation-an electoral system where the distribution of seats in a legislature is proportional to the number of votes each party receives. In other words, if a party gets 20% of the total votes, they should get roughly 20% of the seats. This system aims to ensure that all votes count and that minority views are represented in the legislature. The threshold mentioned refers to the minimum percentage of votes a party needs to secure representation in the legislature. Presidentialism-The principle that the president of a republic is the head of the government. Representation-refers to the process by which citizens elect individuals (representatives) to act on their behalf in the legislative body. These representatives are responsible for expressing the views, interests, and concerns of their constituents (the people who elected them) in the legislative process. This can involve proposing, debating, and voting on legislation, as well as other duties such as constituency service and oversight of the executive branch. The goal is to ensure that the diverse views and needs of the citizens are considered in the decision-making process. This is a fundamental principle of representative democracies. Substantive representation-a term used by Hanna Pitkin’s (1967) work distinguishes between descriptive and substantive representation of women. Descriptive representation refers to the number of women in a legislature, regardless of their political views. Substantive representation, on the other hand, refers to the politics of the representatives. The point of this classification then tells us that the party affiliation of women matters just as much as the number of women. Unicameral-A form of government in which the parliament consists of just one chamber.