Semi-presidential Research Articles

Presidential Activism and Success in Foreign and Defence Policy: A Study of Portugal’s Premier-Presidential Regime

This article investigates presidents’ foreign and defence policy activism under Portugal’s premier-presidential system from 1982 to 2021. First, the article discusses the extant literature on intra-executive conflicts in semi-presidential systems. Then, it provides an overview of Portugal’s experience with semi-presidentialism since 1976 and the powers of the Portuguese president. The third section describes all significant foreign and defence policy presidential interventions from 1982 to 2021 that resulted in disputes with the prime minister. This section estimates presidents’ and prime ministers’ ex-ante preferences over the issues at stake. We verify which preference is closest to the ex-post content of the policy implemented – if it is the president’s, it counts as a presidential win. We identify the formal and informal means by which presidents acted. Informal means are essentially going public tactics. In addition, we inductively pin down the necessary and sufficient conditions under which presidents intervene and succeed. The article’s main findings are two: first, the president’s second term, absence of a strictly unified executive and a majority cabinet are separately necessary but jointly sufficient for presidential interventions to occur; second, formal powers are a necessary but insufficient condition for presidential victory. Finally, we speculate on the policy, institutional, and electoral consequences of presidential activism.

Presentation of the book tagged: ((The balance between constitutional institutions in presidential and semi-presidential systems)) a comparative study

This book is one of the books that deals with a very important topic, which is the balance between constitutional institutions in presidential and semi-presidential systems - and what is meant by the latter is mixed systems - and the author started in the introduction to this book by emphasizing the agreement of jurists that the state has three pillars: the people, Territory, authority, and political power are vested in the head of state, his deputy, and his assistants in the presidential system, and the head of state, the cabinet, and ministers in the semi-presidential system (the mixed system). And the author indicated that the presidential system appeared in the late eighteenth century in the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically in 1789, and the most important characteristic of the presidential system: (unilateral executive power (institution), the election of the head of state by the people, relative separation between institutions and balance between them, and the absence of mutual influence between institutions).

Presidential System in Indonesia Semi-Presidential System in France: How is Democracy Reflected in the Government Systems of the Two Countries?

In this world there are various countries with all the characteristics of the government they have. Even so, all government structures are created and implemented so that the goals of the state can be achieved. Government is a tool that guides society to achieve state goals through established policies and rules. The system of government is one of the determining factors in the life of the state. Some of the government systems that are widely used by countries in the world are presidential, parliamentary, quasi, and referendum systems. Each country uses one of the four government systems according to the needs of their respective countries. This article aims to broaden the reader's horizons of knowledge in the field of law, especially in comparative constitutional law. This article will analyze and compare the government systems used by the Indonesian and French governments in order to find out the similarities and differences in the government systems in the two countries. This research uses a normative juridical research method. The approach used is the statutory, conceptual, and comparative approach. The results of this study indicate that Indonesia uses a presidential system of government while France uses a semi-presidential system of government. There are similarities and differences in the distribution of power in the two countries. The main similarity lies in the three powers that exist in the two countries where the division of powers is based on the concept of the trias politica of Montesquieu. Even so, the two countries do not use the Montesquieu concept exactly but have their own characteristics. The striking difference between the two countries lies in the state leaders. In Indonesia, the president is the head of state and head of government, while in France the head of state is the president, but the head of government is the prime minister.

Reforma konstytucyjna w Kirgistanie w 2021 roku na tle środkowoazjatyckiego konstytucjonalizmu autorytarnego

In terms of the dynamics of the state system’s reforms, Central Asian Kyrgyzstan is a unique case. In 2005, 2010, and 2020 a series of crises of state power, referred to as „revolutions”, unfolded there. Among their consequences were constitutional reforms that concerned the legal construction of the main state organs. The latest reform of 2021 brought an end to the semi-presidential system and established domination of the president over the state system. The analysis of such reforms can be carried out with reference to the paradigm of authoritarian constitutionalism. The following paper undertakes the analysis of the constitutional evolution of Kyrgyzstan and its current situation in a broader context of the Central Asian constitutionalism.
 The paper attempts to reconstruct the concept of the authoritarian constitutionalism, determine the peculiarity of Central Asian constitutionalism and the scope of the constitutional reform that took place in Kyrgyzstan in 2021. The core thesis of the paper asserts that this reform fully fits the paradigm of authoritarian constitutionalism and regional, Central Asian political traditions of strong and centralized state power. The paper employs doctrinal, comparative methods as well as the exegesis of the constitutions.
 This paper consists of four parts. The first chapter discusses the scope of authoritarian constitutionalism and asserts its dual-faceted legal and political nature. The second chapter briefly presents the Central Asian specificity of constitutionalism and nation building and state building processes. Consecutively it turns to the case of Kyrgyzstan and pays closer attention to the latest constitutional reforms. The fourth chapter contains a detailed analysis of the current Kyrgyz constitution in regard to the authoritarian constitutionalism paradigm.
 The research led the author to the conclusion that authoritarian constitutionalism is a not broad theory, but a paradigm, a certain scientific perspective that is embedded on the crossroads between constitutional law and a scientific study of political systems. It is successfully applied in investigations of the non-democratic model of governance. It puts emphasis on a specific legal position of the executive that overwhelmingly dominates the legislature and is prone to abuse. In the case of contemporary Kyrgyzstan, such a model of power is determined by the legal and political specificity of the region. The constitutional reform of 2021 strengthened the position of the president, introduced non-parliamentary representative bodies and limited the independence of the judiciary.

Częściowo sprezydencjalizowany francuski parlament dwuizbowy i jego wpływ na przebieg postępowania ustawodawczego podczas kadencji Emmanuela Macrona w świetle logiki instytucjonalnej V Republiki

The article refers to the impact of the proximity of the presidential and parliamentary elections on the political composition of the chambers of the French parliament, as well as on their functioning in the framework of rationalized parliamentarianism. The 2017 elections were, due to the victory of Emmanuel Macron as a candidate from outside the two main political camps, a special test for the so-called majoritarian fact, which may be defied as an opposite of cohabitation. The author points to the maintenance, even after the 2017 elections, of the Fifth Republic’s institutional logic based on presidential dominance. Its part is also the fact that the Senate – the French second chamber – does not have to be included into the majoritarian fact. this may result in the occurrence, despite the aforementioned strong position of the president’s camp, of incongruent bicameralism. Such a configuration may be treated as an indicator of a partial presidentialization of France’s bicameral parliament. Hence, the author argues that both partial senatorial elections of 2017 and 2020 strengthened a weaker version of majoritarian fact applied within the French semi-presidential system of government. All this has an impact on the use of selected parliamentary procedures concerning the course of legislative proceedings (such as mixed parity commissions and the last word given to the National Assembly), which have been inscribed into the framework of the Fifth Republic’s rationalized parliamentarism.

Applicability of the right to free elections clause of the ECHR to presidential elections: the case of Turkey's new presidential system

ABSTRACT Although Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, which guarantees the rights of individuals to vote or to stand in free elections, is provided only for elections in which the legislature is chosen, the term legislature has not been interpreted by the ECtHR in a manner that excludes all bodies other than national parliaments. Whether various elections fall within the scope of P1-3 has been determined by examining the nature of the rulemaking power of the body at stake. In various applications regarding presidential elections, the Court has examined the influence of the President on the Parliament and his/her power to issue decrees, but it has not applied P1-3 in any presidential election so far. While the parliamentary and semi-presidential systems that most European countries adopt justify that conclusion, Turkey, which switched from a parliamentary system to a presidential system that favours the President over legislative and judicial branches, presents a significant exception. In this regard, this Article analyzes the presidential system that Turkey adopted along with the 2017 constitutional amendments within the Court's case-law and shows why presidential elections held under this system should be and probably will be considered to be within the scope of P1-3.

Governmental cabinets in the context of functioning of atypical semi-presidential system of government in the Republic of Azerbaijan (1996–2022)

Governmental cabinets in the context of functioning of atypical semi-presidential system of government in the Republic of Azerbaijan (1996–2022)

Governmental cabinets in the context of functioning of atypical semi-presidential system of government in the Kyrgyz Republic (1996–2010)

Governmental cabinets in the context of functioning of atypical semi-presidential system of government in the Kyrgyz Republic (1996–2010)

THE EVOLUTION OF PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION: FROM SEMI-PRESIDENTIALISM TO SUPER PRESIDENTIALISM

Today, the presidential system in Russian Federation, by gradually evolving, has been taking another turn. The topic of article is the evolution of Russian semi-presidential system. The article consists of three parts. First of all, different governmental systems (parliamentary system, presidential and semi-presidential system) were examined in order to comprehend semi-presidential system properly. In the second part, semi-presidential system formed with the Russian Federation’s Constitution of 1993 was explained diffusively. And in the last part, the article was finalized by analyzing structural process which takes Russian Federation to super presidentialism and in this context by shedding light on legislations series. The contribution of this study to the literature is to diversify the examples about political systems on the basis of the evolution of the Russian political system and to reveal the unique structure of this political system by taking into account the discussions within Russian Federation.

Runoff Comebacks in Comparative Perspective: Two-Round Presidential Election Systems

In many countries, the president of the republic is directly elected through popular vote. Most such nations have an electoral system that provides for a double-round of voting. Often termed a two-round system, such elections have a second turn if no candidate obtains an absolute majority in the first round. This article presents an original dataset covering all the presidential and the semi-presidential regimes (73 countries) that have adopted two-round system along with the results of 423 elections for both the first and second round and whether the result was determined in the first round, whether the plurality winner of the first round was victorious in the second round, or whether there was a second round ‘comeback’ – when the runner-up of the first round was victorious in the second. A variety of exploratory hypotheses are presented that try to predict the likelihood of a second round or a comeback. Few are validated. The presence of an incumbent and a qualified method of presidential selection increases the probability of a second round occurring while a greater number of candidates and greater electoral volatility make it less likely. We find that no variables related to political institutions, presidential resources, or the structure of the first round predictive of a second round comeback. We make the dataset public so that future scholars can continue this form of investigation.

Foreign Policy Preferences and Vote Choice Under Semi-Presidentialism

Under semi-presidential regimes, directly elected presidents often play a central role in foreign policy, but their responsibility for the economy is limited. I propose an office-centred explanation of voter behaviour in semi-presidential elections based on the foreign policy preferences of the electorate. In order to explore the empirical applicability of this addition to the theory, I explore the Lithuanian case: a semi-presidential country where the president has substantial powers in foreign and defence policy and the presidents are usually non-partisan. I employ a dataset from the Lithuanian 2019 post-election survey that offers a battery of items measuring the positions of voters on foreign policy issues. When controlling for alternative explanations, I find that foreign policy preferences (measured as an index of voter attitudes towards Russia and defence) are a strong and stable determinant of vote choice, in both the first and second rounds of presidential elections.

Parliamentary Oversight: A Critical Review of Literature

The main of this paper is to define what is meant by ‘legislative’ or parliamentary oversight. The other objective is to assess the role of the Legislature in the Budget Ex Post. The Objectives, tools, and mechanisms of parliamentary oversight shall be discussed. The review of the literature was used as a methodology in this paper. The review found that there are various definitions of parliamentary oversight The Portal for Parliamentary Development was a great source of literature that was reviewed and analyzed in this study. It was reviewed that different scholars define parliamentary oversight differently. Not all definitions capture all the key roles of parliamentary oversight. paper reviews several scholarly articles that provides various definitions of parliamentary oversight. Furthermore, it is revealed that government reporting and legislative scrutiny of public accounts is more common in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems than in presidential systems; even so, 84 percent of legislatures in presidential systems analyze financial reports from the government. From the literature reviewed, it has been concluded that the robust monitoring of the executive by the parliament is an indicator of good governance. Besides the parliament’s legislative function, it is through oversight that the parliament can ensure a balance of power and assert its role as the defender of the people’s interests. Keywords: Parliamentary Oversight; Legislative Oversight; Public Accounts Committee DOI: 10.7176/PPAR/12-6-01 Publication date: August 31 st 2022

Presidentialization of Parliamentarism in Serbia – Causes and Consequences

Although the principle of separation of powers in Serbia has been regulated following the parliamentary model in the span of three decades, it has in practice functioned most often as a semi-presidential system. This paper analyzes two groups of factors that are the cause of presidentialization. Institutional factors that systematically create an environment suited for presidentialization include shortcomings in the constitutional design, the proportional electoral system and oligarchic tendencies in the party system. Direct election gives the President of the Republic strong legitimacy, and by retaining the position of party leader, in an electoral system with closed electoral lists and weak intra-party democracy, the head of state can easily control the parliamentary majority, the government and the parliament, thus upsetting the balance of power. Another group of factors that strongly affect the action of the aforementioned institutional aspects are a political culture with a strong authoritarian tradition and a lack of respect for the constitution and the democratic tradition. The consequences are strong authoritarian and populist tendencies and a departure from the liberal concept of democracy. The options proposed by the academic and political public as a solution to the situation blocking the consolidation of democracy in Serbia include the normativization of the incompatibility of office of the head of state and party leader, the abolition of direct elections, and a semi-presidential system.

POLICY OF THE JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT PARTY (AKP) IN THE NEED AND APPLICABILITY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

Since the time of Plato, there has been a discussion of political systems and regimes. In search of an ideal state structure in this process, the model of democracy, which is based on the will of the people, is accepted as an indicator of the only functioning system of modernity. The distribution or limitation of political power among the powers is governed by constitutions. Parliamentary, presidential and semi-presidential systems are considered the main systems of government in democratic countries. Since the existence of a parliament is not a guarantee of democracy, democracy can exist without a parliamentary system, and thus a parliamentary system can exist without democracy. Therefore, there is no direct relationship or proportion between the form of government and democracy or the rule of law. Is there a need and applicability of the presidential system, which is constantly discussed in Turkey, are some of the criticisms and reservations regarding this system correctly interpreted and understood. When it comes to the existence of a harmonious government in any country and the satisfaction of the electorate, it is necessary to consider the negative / positive discourses of leaders. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has won every election since its founding by Recep Tayyip ERDOGAN. This research was carried out in order to understand the strong concept of the Ak Party brand and its value in the eyes of voters. Also in this article you can see an overview of the shortcomings of the presidential system, as well as the positive aspects of the presidential system. The study also takes into account the views of various authors, a conceptual analysis of public administration systems, and comparisons with examples of countries in the historical process. The study consists of three parts. The first part emphasized the need for a presidential system. The second part examines in detail the applicability of the presidential system in the Republic of Turkey. The third part contains criticisms and reservations against the system.

The place and role of the President of the Republic of Moldova and the President of Romania in the system of public authorities. Comparative study

The institution of the Head of State is a research object both for the science of constitutional law and for the science of administrative law. The Article is dedicated to the comparative examination of the role and place of the Head of State in the system of public authorities of the Republic of Moldova and Romania. The constitutional provisions determining the functions and duties of the President of the Republic of Moldova and the President of Romania, the views expressed in the doctrine, as well as the constitutional case-law in this area are analyzed. The comparative analysis allows us to highlight the common features, but also the differences in the legal status of the President in these States. In the opinion of the author, at the level of the Head of State or the Government, any political task leads to an administrative subsidiary and any administrative task has a political sublayer, that a distinction between "political" and "administrative" appears to be risky and uncommanding. In conclusion, the author argues the idea of the need to redefine the role and place of the President of the Republic of Moldova in the system of public authorities, by rethinking the constitutional framework with a view to establishing a semi-presidential regime along the lines of Romania or France.

Crown-Presidentialism

Abstract This article will theorize a previously unidentified type of constitutional design that I call “crown-presidentialism.” Crown-presidential design combines constitutional powers exercised by elected presidents in both presidential and semi-presidential systems. First, as in presidentialism, crown-presidential constitutions grant the elected president final management power over the makeup of the executive-branch government. Second, as in a semi-presidentialism, crown-presidential constitutions afford the elected president guardian powers to control the legislative branch as well as important judicial, prosecutorial, and integrity institutions. This formal design has provided presidents an important tool for dominating both formal and informal politics while claiming fidelity to democratic constitutional design. Crown-presidentialism is therefore an important tool in the super-presidentialism of many new authoritarian regimes. This finding is a reminder of the importance of formal design rules in shaping political behavior—even in some forms of authoritarian governance.

Pozycja ustrojowa prezydenta w systemie parlamentarnym i semiprezydenckim w świetle konstytucji litewskich z 1922 r. i 1992 r.

This article aims to analyze the political position of the president in the parliamentary systems of interwar Lithuania and the semi-presidential system of modern Lithuania. The analysis covers the regulations of Lithuanian constitutions of 1922 and 1992. The article assesses the most important legal provisions concerning the political position of the head of state. The subject of the analysis is still relevant, as Lithuania, like during the first independence period, adopted the same political system, restoring its pre-war solutions (including reactivating the institution of the head of state). Identifying the differences and similarities in the systemic position of the institution of the head of state in the light of the Lithuanian basic laws seems to be an issue worth scientific research.

Institutional Determinants of Democratic Breakdown (The Case of Weimar Republic)

The paper aims to examine the institutional causes of the democratic breakdown of the Weimar Republic. To accomplish that purpose following problems were set: firstly, paper discusses current state of democracy throughout the world, its issues and challenges. Paper also underlines global trend of democratic decline. That discussion is provided to draw parallels and pinpoint relevance of the analysis. Afterwards, the research examines German political system, democratic roots and development. Moreover, constitutional changes and checks and balances are analyzed as well. The paper particularly scrutinizes evolution of German political parties and specifics of electoral system. Institutional heritage of regime change is also unveiled. The paper underlines pitfalls of Weimar Republic’s institutions that led to democratic breakdown. Apart from it, research generally outlines socio-economic background of Weimar Republic. During the research examination of documents, content analysis, comparative and historical methods were applied. The paper concludes that regarding to its institutional weakness, that is absence of electoral threshold, fragmentation of parliament and political parties, the abundance of social associations, semi-presidential system and socioeconomic situation created ground for an authoritarian takeover of the Weimar Republic.

Pozycja ustrojowa prezydenta w konstytucjach Litwy z 1922, 1928 i 1992 r.

The aim of this article is to compare the political position of the president in the parliamentary and authoritarian system of interwar Lithuania and the semi-presidential system of contemporary Lithuania. The analysis covers the regulations of three Lithuanian constitutions – those of 1922, 1928 and 1992. Such a strategy seems to be of great cognitive value, as it allows to show the differences and similarities, as well as the evolution of the role of the President in different periods of the Republic of Lithuania. The article assesses the most important legal provisions concerning the political position of the Head of State. The subject under study is still relevant, since Lithuania, as in the period of its first independence until 1926, adopted the same political system, restoring its pre-war solutions (including reactivating the institution of the Head of State). Both the current semi-presidential model of the Second Republic of Lithuania and the parliamentary model of the First Republic of Lithuania until 1926 represent the same type of democracy as a parliamentary system (with the superior role of the Sejm in the system of power).

Результативність політичного лідерства в умовах президентських і напівпрезидентських демократичних республік: динаміка основних показників

The purpose of the study is to provide a comparative analysis of democratic leadership effectiveness in the relatively large presidential and semi-presidential countries of the world. Providing powerful political leadership is the essential task for presidents and institutions of the presidency in presidential and semi-presidential democratic republics. Countries with presidential and semi-presidential systems of government should be combined under the term “countries (states) with the executive presidency or presidential states (countries)” that reflects their common feature, namely: critical role of the institution of the presidency. Two main indicators of political leadership effectiveness in democratic states are the EIU’s Democracy Index (DI) and comparable GDP (PPP) per capita that reflect the current situation and comparative dynamics in the political and economic fields of societal development. The United States confidently hold economic leadership in the group of polities with an executive presidency, but the DI in this country during the last 15 years has steadily declined. In the subgroup of presidential republics, three Latin American states – Uruguay, Chile and Costa Rica – have noticeably outranked the United States (and South Korea) by the EIU’s DI. The experience of Chile deserves attention: there had been a dramatic upsurge of social unrest in late 2019, but the Chilean president, Sebastián Piñera, and his government took the political initiative and led the process of changing the constitution successfully. In 2020 the semi-presidential Republic of China (Taiwan) had been the absolute leader in political development and economic growth among the states with an executive presidency. The president, Tsai Ing-wen, played a crucial role in implementing and realizing democratic leadership there. Lithuania is the apparent leader in democracy and economic improvement among the European semi-presidential states during the last two decades. The next research of the author in this direction will be devoted to the comparative institutional analysis of the presidency functioning in the United States and Ukraine as the sample countries with presidential and semi-presidential systems of government systems respectively at the present stage of development.