Comparing Political Systems - General Introduction PDF

INTRO What is comparative politics? Comparative politics is one of the main sub fields of political science and goes with political theory and international relations. The first one deals with theorical issues while the other deals with diplomacy. Comparing political systems deals with the essenc...

INTRO What is comparative politics? Comparative politics is one of the main sub fields of political science and goes with political theory and international relations. The first one deals with theorical issues while the other deals with diplomacy. Comparing political systems deals with the essence of politics in every sovereignty. It focuses on power, on the institutional organization of political systems and on the decision making that affect the community. It is the oldest branch of political science. It is close to public law because questions such as institution organization are delt with by national constitutions. Constitutional law is one of the main fields of public law. The sources of comparative political system are also very old. Aristotle was one of the first scientists in the field. He considered that comparative method was the royal road of political science. However, at the same time, the comparative study remained mostly not comparative because the comparison was very descriptive, monographic and static (theoretical). The heading was comparative, but the subject was not. Since Aristotle, things have changed. The body of knowledge has expanded significantly. There is data available now in almost every country in the world, and there was a real revolution in the 1950s in terms of collection of data but also in developing new concepts and approaches. It is one of the consequences of new worlds after WW2. There is still a certain opposition and coexistence between knowledge and prejudice/assumption. For example, there are not such things as American politics, but just decision making, but we still say it if we're French. In short, political language change, so does a certain angle. This is due to the fact that not all knowledge in pollical science is reliable. Sometimes knowledge is limited because the language is not understood, or it is kept secret: there is a problem of access to fully comprehensive and objective data. Moreover, in journals, the data is mixed with the journalists' point of view. The first empirical political scientist is considered to be Machiavelli, author of "The Prince", in the 16^th^ century. He compares the authority in many countries such as the kingdom of Spain, Milan, the Turkish government and Greece; the way each province were administered in the Roman Empire, the authority of the different popes, Louis XIV in France... every chapter of the book defines general standards of political manners and behaviors regardless of age and time. Two centuries later, a similar comparative work was done by Montesquieu in France. He wrote one of his books on the greatness of the roman empire and why it declined (so he compares greatness and declines). Its purpose is to draw lessons from the roman experience for the new world and highlights the mistakes to avoid in the pre-revolutionary France. Another important thing in Montesquieu's work is that he travelled and took notes, not only from the political pov but also from social pov. He would compare countries, and this would give the "Spirit of Law", one of his famous books. Despite travelling so much and having such a big vision of the world, he criticized his own work. Can we really understand the spirit of the law of a foreign country? Can one grasp the spirit of a system? He questioned. Can one assess the general spirit of a system without the knowledge of all the elements which compose the system? Today, much work has been done by lawyers and scientist from the comparative pov. However, there is a common feature in the way they work: they isolate one element of the study in the political system, and they compare the particular mechanism under each system. This raises a problem of understanding: if we only compare one component of a system, is understanding enough? There is another phenomenon: globalization. One of its effects is it transforms national political spaces and the position of parties in political space. That's an important impact on the comparative nature of the study. Topic 1: the separation of power and of institution --------------------------------------------------- Separation of power is a doctrine, a theory. It is the one on which are based modern democracy. If we look at the system, we can see that where there is a rule of law, there are procedural restraints that are effectively established. That means the division of powers. There are two kinds: - a functional division of power, which means separation between the branch of powers: legislative, executive and judicial. Explained by Locke, Montesquieu... One power limit the other power. It is called functional bc the limitation is made by the scope of power. The power that makes laws must not be the same as the one who enforces the law. - spatial division of power, or territorial division, which means differences between unitary regime and federal regime. Multilevel governance ? The opposite of the rules of law are totalitarian regime. Totalitarian theory is strongly opposed to any division of powers. If we look back at history, we can see that the power has been concentrated in the hands of one branch/one person in all totalitarian regime. Some authors have written against the separation of powers: Hobbes, Marx, Bentham... All about the uselessness of separation of powers. Bentham wrote "if the power is being used for good, why divide it? if it is being used for evil, why have it?". However, against Bentham, there is the school of constitutionalism. They replied to that "who is the judge of what is power for good and what is power for evil". This view is explained in 1765 in the commentaries of the law of England by Blackstone: "in all tyrannical governments, the supreme magistracy, or the right of both making and enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man or one and the same body of man. And wherever those two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty". In England, there has been a new philosophical dilemma "divide or not to divide" (the power). The separation of power is mixed with different governors, which means that different authorities have different powers. It has existed since ancient Greece but was theorized much later. The first theory was conducted by John Locke. Locke was one of the most influential enlightenment thinkers, English philosopher. He is known as the father of liberalism in England. He has followed the theory of Francis Bacon, who was a Lord, and had played a very important role in the French theory of the social contract. Indeed, his work has influenced Rousseau, Voltaire, Kant and American declaration of independence through the liberal theory. Today, Locke's political legal principals have an international expansion. They play a very important role in the theory and practice of limited representative government and the protection of basic rights and freedoms under the rule of law. His philosophy is often cited as the origin of modern conception of personal identity, psychology and self. He is opposed to the cartesian philosophy based on preexisting concept. He thinks we are all born without any ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience which we derived by sense perception this is empiricism. Bacon is the father of it, he's the first one that wrote that scientific knowledge is based on inducted reasoning and on careful observation of events in nature. Locke is the one who theorized the separation of power. For him, the purpose was to help the English parlement in their efforts to fight for equality, to enquire the same status of the crown. indeed, the political regime in England is parliamentary monarchy. House of common is the people. Cromwell, in England, is known as a dictator. After the Cromwellian dictatorship, there was a lack of harmony between government and people. Locke saw the solution in the separation of power, which is the power of making general rules for each branch. We needed to enforce laws, create law and do international laws... and that's what Montesquieu imagined for the political instability in France. He reinterpreted the work of Locke, which also worked in France. Locke used the word judicial power. The classical approach is that different branches of power have their proper power and that there is a division of them. in France it is called the separation, in USA it is called checks and balances doctrine. The federal constitution does not use the words separation of powers, but the supreme court refers to that and calls it "fundamental principle". That said, the USA constitution does not explicitly express the separation of power. The expression "checks and balances" speaks for itself. Balance of powers allowed to keep the parties of the process in check, because it is the way to achieve the balance. But how does it work concretely? Is it conceivable that the powers check each other while at the same time being separated? Doesn't separation of powers obliged not to be intrusive and not even check what the other is doing ? First, what are the mechanisms? There are few depending on the system where we are. The first is the procedure of impeachment. The second one is the destitution of the parlement by the government. Another example is the judicial review by the supreme court of the USA. Depending on the political regime (ie parliamentary regime, presidential regime, semi presidential regime), you are not going to have the same mechanism of control of separation of powers. In the parliamentary regime, parlement has a big power, so does the legislative power. In presidential, the executive power has a big power... The mechanism to trigger the control of the separation of power depends on the regime. The ultimate line of this mechanism, from a functional perspective, is the system of check and balances as a prerequisite for good governance. Where the law-making body is institutionally independent, the laws are of better quality. Where the executive does not influence, justice is of better quality. What are the branches of power and what are the bodies? The names of the bodies change from country to country: In the USA, - Executive is vested in the cabinet and the president. - Judicial belongs to court and supreme court - Legislatives belong to congress. It's bicameral: senate and house of representant. In the UK, which is slightly different because of the monarch, - Executives are government led by the prime minister; it also represents the will of the majority. - Judicial is vested in UK courts and UK supreme court, which is on top of the judicial system. - Legislative is the parlement, which is also divided into two chambers: The House of Lords and the House of commons. - The crown is also a power, even if symbolic. It signs laws, how they become enacted, represents tradition, and signs international treaties. In France, - Executive is the president, the cabinet and the Prime minister, - Judiciary is represented by court - Legislative is represented by the parliament which is also bicameral: senate and national assembly. Does the separation of power prohibit that one branch reviews the work of another branch? (in a way that each branch cannot interact with another branch) Does this mean that courts may not review legislation? There is maybe no political liability of government before court or parlement. Not at all, on the contrary. For example, judicial review in the USA, in UK or in Australia is a perfect mechanism allowing to check the legislature by protecting individuals' rights from a potential tyranny of the majority. In fact, it is an essential element of democratic institutions. It allows the courts to review a legislative act or an executive act and to declare that act in violation of the constitution. In the USA, the judicial review is not explicitly expressed in the constitution. However, it is one of the most important mechanisms and has been created by practice, by court. In 1803, in the Marbury vs Madison case, the supreme court for the first time introduced the doctrine of judicial review. It is ruled that, in this case, because the constitution is the supreme law of the land/country, and because it is the function of the judiciary to protect the law, the court must declare state laws, acts of congress or acts of government null and void if they are inconsistent with the constitution. In that way, the supreme court in the USA reviews laws and executive action contrary to the constitution. If the judicial review results into declaration of unconstitutionality, the supreme court decision is biding and final, for all other courts and authorities whether state or federal. This is a procedure is close to the French QPC which allows the Constitutional Council to check the work of the parlement. The difference with the US constitutional review is that the French one is explicitly integrated into the constitution with the article 61-1 of the constitution. The difference between the judicial review or the QPC and an appeal before the Cassation Court/Supreme court is that the challenge does not relate on the rights or the wrong but is about controlling the consistency of justice w the constitution. *Supreme court has a double function: constitutional review and supreme court, verify the quality of justice and previous decisions.* The second mechanism is impeachment, which is a process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal brings charges against a public official for misconduct. Depending on country, it can have different scopes, initiated by different bodies. In Europe and Latin America, impeachment is against ministers because it is the only way to prosecute ministers for misconduct. The way it is conducted depends on the regime in which we are. National legislation is very different both regarding the definition of impeachment and its consequences, but the purpose most of the time is the same: to put an end to the functions of a person. An official is considered impeached once the charges are brought, done by a trial. Either it decides there is impeachment, so the person vacate the offices, or it is not impeachment and nothing happen. So, impeachment is a specific procedure by which a person having high offices is accused of either abuse of their office or accused of very serious crimes such as betrayal, violation of public trust, bribery, corruption, other pol crimes. For example, the power to impeach is vested only in the house of representants. The origin of the words come from the French "Empêcher", to stop. There is a misconception that it's from the Latin "impeterer" (?) which means to attack. For historical origin, this mechanism came from England, when the constitutional convention was dropped. The first instance of impeachment is from the 14^th^ century in England. The purpose was to make the king's advisors accountable before the parlement. Then, it was not used that much until the 17^th^ century when the king asked to revive the parlement impeachment power. Then it migrates to Philadelphia, against Warrant Hastings. There are a lot of debates about what are the impeachable crimes in USA. It today has a list: other high crimes, misdemeanors, betrayal, bribery... not defined in constitution and subject to debate.