Role of Constitutions in Shaping Political Institutions: A Comparative Study

1. Constitutions and Institutions How do they operate? What difference do they make in liberal democracies?

2. Research papers: PRELIMINARY OUTLINE Due Friday, November 16th This should lay out the argument of the paper in point form

3. Final exam Saturday, Dec. 8th 9:00-11:00 AA1043

4. Some questions: • What difference do constitutions make? • Are constitutions scraps of paper, as Bismarck argued? OR • Do constitutions spell out relationships between different institutions, e.g. • Between parliament and the executive? • Between central and provincial governments?

5. An argument: Constitutions matter, and matter a great deal, when political leaders follow them: • Courts increasingly enforce constitutions • But we need to look not only at the constitution on paper, but the way in which it is brought off paper and how it evolves • Valid not only for liberal democracies, but also illiberal democracies & some authoritarian systems

6. Reasons for this: Institutions and the shape they take matter: • Institutions shape the ways in which political forces are expressed and channelled, in particular, • institutions shape the demands which end up on the political agenda, as well as • the ease with which conflicts can be resolved • Example: variation ways in which regional and cultural differences are expressed and dealt with in federal and unity systems

7. A quick refresher: varieties of political systems

8. Unitary vs. federal systems: • Unitary system -- sovereignty concentrated in a central government: • Power may be devolved to regional governments, created by the central government • But devolved powers can be withdrawn (e.g. Northern Ireland) • Federal system: sovereignty shared by a central government and provincial governments -- neither is capable of abolishing the other

9. Presidential v. Parliamentary v. semi-presidential systems • Presidential system: political executive is separate from the legislature • Parliamentary system: the political executive must serve with the support (or at a minimum, the forbearance) of a majority of the lower house of parliament • Semi-presidential system: combines features of both: • Directly elected president • Premier, typically appointed by the president, must serve with the confidence of the parliament

10. Forms of liberal democracies and illiberal democracies

11. Five cases:

12. Variations in power of political executives UK: • Unwritten constitution • Parliamentary system: • Prime Minister and Cabinet serve with the confidence of parliament • Because the single member plurality electoral system usually manufactures majorities, the government usually has the support of a parliamentary majority

13. The UK Cabinet System • Cabinet consisted of cabinet membership • Prime Minister (Tony Blair) • Deputy Prime Minister (John Prescott) • Secretaries of State • Chancellor of the Exchequer (Gordon Brown) • Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw • Home Secretary (David Blunkett) • Minister of Defense (Geoffrey Hoon) • 20-25 others with full cabinet rank • Ministers of State • Junior Ministers Total 96 -- The “payroll vote’

14. Prime Minister’s advantage • Hires and fires the cabinet: acknowledged right to do so (a convention of the constitution) • Support of `10 Downing St.’ staff (Equivalent to Prime Minister’s Office, [PMO] in Canada) including policy unit, social inclusion unit… 10 Downing Street • Support from Cabinet Office: (Equivalent of Privy Council Office [PCO] in Canada) • Whip system

15. Some questions: • How powerful are the political executives in different forms of liberal democracies? • What role do assemblies play? Are legislative assemblies capable of controlling political executives? • If so how? • What differences do parties and party systems make? • What difference does federalism make?