Workings of parliments of the world

Factual Questions
1

As an American, I really don’t understand these parlimentary systems. I like to read books about the German Nazi era (it’s a great insight into what not to do, as well as the problem of human evil), but I’m always half lost when they start describing the palimentary machinations of Hitler and his cronies.

In these books, Hitler is always having to defer to President Hindenburg, who doesn’t seem subject to the same elections, and who doesn’t seem to actually have much to do with the day-to-day workings of the government.

So, you European (or not) dopers, can you explain to me how your country’s PM, president, etc are chosen, what their powers are, and how you can have elections because people start calling for them?

2

In the Weimar Republic, Germany from 1919 (after WW I) and 1933 (Hitler takes power), the situation was as following:

The people democratically elects every four years (women suffrage granted) a parliament, the Reichstag, and every seven years a head of state, the Reichspräsident, who had extraordinary powers (army command, right to do “Notverordnungen”, emergency decrets, which had the power of a proper law without being approved by the Reichstag, right to set the basic rights out of force if considered necessary for the sake of the state, right to dissolve the Reichstag, and so on) because Germans wanted something similar to the Kaiser in the old times. First, the Presidents were convinced democrats, like Ebert, but Hindenburg was not, he was a senile old man dreaming of the old days in the empire.
The usual way was that the elected parliament chooses, after formation of a coalition (mostly headed by the SPD party), a head of government, the Chancellor (Reichskanzler). A coalition is an alliance between several parties which together have more than 50 percent of the parliament seats, thus enabling them to govern. The chancellor was the guy who really ruled and who appointed the ministers.
The system worked well for some time, until, about 1930, the number of parties sitting in the Reichstag became enormous (more than 20) and the party quarrels got so strong no chancellor could form a stable coalition. This led to regular parliament dissolutions and by-elections (one election in 1928, two elections in 1930) and finally to the so-called presidential cabinets: The prez (Hindenburg at that time, an old war general) could appoint any chancellor he wished to, if no coaltion got together. He did so several times, with chnacellors who had no support at all in the parliament, and who ruled only by means of those emergency decrets. Democracy practically was abolished although the democratic 1919 constitution still was in effect.

When the Grundgesetz, Germany’s current constitution, was drafted in 1949, one carefully avoided the mistakes of the 1919 constitution: The number of parties in the parliament, now called the Bundestag, is limited by means of a rule that states a party with less than 5 % in a nationwide election does not get seats in Berlin (currently, there are five parties in the Bundestag); the rights of the President are now merely symbolical; a Chancellor can only be fired by the Bundestag if a new one is elected, thus forming a new coalition (the old constitution allowed firing a chancellor without choosing a new one, which led to a vacuum of power). Yet it is still the Bundestag who elects the head of government, not the people. The people just elects the parliament on which the government depends. This is completely different from American impeachment regulations, which only allow firing a criminal prez; the German Bundestag can simply get rid of the chancellor if it doesn’t want him any more. If the Bundestag cannot choose a new one, it is dissolved, and a new one is elected (practically always the chairman of the major party).
The system has shown itself as providing pretty much stability, although there is in fact no separation between legislative (Bundestag) and executive (chancellor and his ministers) branch.
How we can have elections because people start calling for them? If the coalition breaks, and a new one cannot be formed, the parliament gets dissolved, and a new one is elected. But we can also have changes of power without any nationwide election. Example: Prior to 1982, the SPD, led by Helmut Schmidt, had the majority in the Bundestag, and he was chancellor, being supported by the smaller FDP party. The other big party apart from the SPD, the conservative CDU, was opposition. Then there were quarrels between SPD and CDU, the FDP announced it would not support Schmidt any more, the FDP went to the CDU, and together they had the majority within the parliament. The FDP quitted the coalition with the SPD and formed a new one with the CDU, afterwards they elected CDU’s Helmut Kohl new chancellor, and we had a change of power without any election among the people.

3

Thanks! I sort of assume you’re Deutsche. That really helps. I had picked up the parts about the coalitions, but the rest was new.

Any differences out there in, say, Britain, Sweden, Australia, etc?

4

The British government has two houses:
[ul][li]House of Commons: around 650 Members of Parliament (MPs), each representing a single constituency and each a member of a political party.[/li][li]House of Lords**: originally made up of unelected hereditary peers (whose position in the Lords passes on to their descendants), the current Labour government has sparked their replacement with life peers (whose position is not hereditary, and who in theory are selected without political bias for their experience).[/ul][/li]General elections are held every five years, although the governing party can call an election earlier. This is quite a common tactic; the government will often either hint at an imminent election to force the opposition to throw away their advertising budgets prematurely, or make some sweeping tax cuts and then be re-elected on a high of public opinion. Voters select one candidate in their constituency. The candidate with a simple majority wins (yes, a lot of people don’t like this system here for obvious reasons).

The three main parties are Labour, the Conservatives (aka Tories) and Liberal Democrats (aka Lib-Dems). Labour were traditionally the working class left-wing party, supporting public ownership but shying away from socialism. However, a swing further to the left in the early 1980s culminated in a crushing defeat in 1983 and ever since then the party has ‘modernised’ and ‘centralised’ to win the middle ground. In other words, it’s now very similar to the Democrats in the US – no more talk of public ownership or unilateralism. The MP leading the party, Tony Blair, is a very charismatic figure ready to change policies at the first whiff of a negative opinion poll. As a result, Labour are doing very nicely at the moment – well ahead in terms of seats in Parliament.

The Conservatives are traditionally the socially right-wing party, although Margaret Thatcher added economic liberalism in the 1980s (privatisation of everything in sight) to a heavy emphasis on ‘traditional’ morality. The economic liberalism was immensely popular in the 1980s, and the Conservatives enjoyed a spell in government from 1979 to 1997 with little opposition. However, once they lost Thatcher’s charismatic presence (her own fault; she alienated public and party with her stubbornness) and the economic boom ended, the Conservatives lost ground. They’re currently in a terrible shape, whipped in the 2001 election and riven by internal splits on whether they support or dislike European integration. They’re also in a leadership crisis, as the previous leader (William Hague) resigned after the election defeat. They’re the second largest party, but nowhere near as popular as they’re used to.

The Liberal Democrats are the small third party; they’re unlikely to form a government in the near future, but may hold the balance of power in the event of a close run race. Portraying themselves as young, dynamic and socially and economically liberal they steadily gain ground but often lose out due to the electoral system, often finishing in second place (in a winner-takes-all system).

The party winning the majority of seats in the Commons becomes the goverment. This is only effective if they have a majority over all the other parties; every vote is made by simple majority, so alliances between parties on certain issues are not unusual. The Conservatives usually ally with the small numbers of Ulster Unionists elected in Northern Ireland; the Lib-Dems sometimes ally with Labour on issues. Other parties in the Commons are mostly nationalists from Scotland (the Scottish National Party) or Wales (Plaid Cymru). Despite recent press, far-right parties don’t get a look-in at general elections.

Once in government, the winning party leader selects his or her Cabinet (committee of senior ministers responsible for the various ministries of the state) and announces a legislative programme. Bills (legislation prior to approval) are debated in the Commons and at select committees of MPs with particular experience or skills. Since a simple majority vote is pretty much all that’s required to turn a bill into an Act of Parliament, the use of a rigid disciplinary system is normal in ‘encouraging’ MPs to vote with the party line. Sometimes MPs vote against their party, but the party whips (MPs who enforce the party line) can make their lives hell. The government can also ‘encourage’ the local constituency party workers to put pressure on the MP; the local party has a major say in deciding which candidate can represent them in an election.

Bills are also scrutinised and debated in the Lords, although in practice their only real power is to delay bills, adding delays to the goverment’s legislative programme and jeopardising the amount of time available in the session (the part of the year the Houses of Parliament are working) for bills considered more critical by the government.

The opposition party (the second largest in the Commons in terms of number of MPs) can actually do very little to prevent legislation going through against a government that can effectively impose party discipline. Most opposition is through public opinion, party alliances or (most commonly) through MPs rebelling and voting against the party line.

I think this covers the basics. I hope.

5

What excuse does a British ruling party to call for new elections? I would have thought that this would come from a coalition breakup, and that the new coalition resulting would vote to have new elections so they could have an excuse to elect a new PM and therefore appoint new ministers.

I think this must be a British phrase that Americans don’t really use. What’s a look-in?

6

‘look-in’ is a chance to participate.

It’s usually used as a negative e.g. ‘the losing team never got a look-in’.

As for an excuse to call an election - the Prime Minister doesn’t need one! As Crusoe implied, if the economy is in good shape, and people are vaguely content, then a party will start thinking about having an election.

If I remember correctly, we’ve had British elections called (or not) on grounds such as:

  • who rules the country: the Government or the miners?
  • whether a minor infectious disease is still travelling round the farm animal population
  • because the English football team were tipped to do well in a tournament just before the election date

Election losses have been blamed on:

  • the weather
  • the England football team losing
  • an overconfident speech during the campaign
  • a few corrupt Members of parliament

I should add that Crusoe’s post was a pleasure to read: accurate, informational yet agreeably short. Well done that man! :cool:

7

Reading my last post, you might think my definition of ‘look-in’ meant extremists can’t participate in elections. We’re a democracy - they can.

So let me improve the definition of ‘look-in’:

‘to have some chance of affecting the final outcome’.

Thus if an American Football team run down the clock in the last quarter (e.g. throwing short, or running 4 yards a carry), then you can say ‘on the last possession of the game, the losing team didn’t get a look-in.’

Hope that’s clear.

8

Thanks glee!

Just to clarify those points futher…

Traditional party loyalties and media saturation of the three main parties help to ensure that extremist parties have never gained a seat in the Commons. Because only the candidate in first place gets any position, the FPTP system is not especially representative (candidates can and are elected on less than 50% of the vote) but it also prevents vocal extremist minorities from gaining seats.

As for calling elections, in practice governments are wise enough not to call one every six months when polls are in their favour, but usually use the power only in the last 12-18 months of their five-year term to confuse the opposition into acting prematurely or to take advantage of timing.

Two examples spring to mind. Most recently, Labour’s horror at the foot and mouth outbreak just before the original date for the 2001 election (they were terrified that negative publicity about a national crisis would cripple their vote). Another famous example is the 1983 election, when Margaret Thatcher was riding high on a wave of post-Falklands War ‘victorious nationalism’, and Labour was open to all kinds of ‘loony left’ accusations for supporting policies that were blatantly not attractive to the majority of ‘middle England’ voters.

9

In practice, the range of options open to a British PM in the choice of election dates is now very limited and it is debatable whether this leaves the incumbant party with much of a tactical advantage. Under normal circumstances (abnormal circumstances being a national crisis, loss of a majority in Parliament or such like), no sensible PM would request a dissolution within the first four years of Parliament. There would be a strong feeling that he/she was abusing their position for party advantage and the public dislike having to vote too often. Parliaments are expected to run for at least four years. Conversely, there are disadvantages in a PM waiting until the five years are up. This opens him/her to the charge of being afraid to face the electorate. Moreover, there are practical considerations which further limit the choice of dates. Politicians don’t like electioneering in the middle of winter when the weather is bad and realise that the electorate have more important things to think about (holidays) in summer. It is also inconvenient to the government’s legislative programme to dissolve Parliament during periods when Parliament would normally be in session. They also like to avoid the annual party conference season. This leaves a very narrow range of dates in late spring/early summer and late autumn. Most general elections are now held to coincide with the spring local government elections as this allows the parties to campaign for both sets of elections simultaneously. After four years any PM who is ahead in the polls comes under enormous media pressure to call an election. In 1983 and 2001 the incumbant PMs bowed to that pressure.

10

Australia has substantial similarity to the British system. The House of Commons becomes the House of Representatives. Members being elected from individual constituencies in a similar manner (UK used “first past the post”, Aust uses preference voting). The leader of the party or coalition that controls a magority of members becomes the Prime Minister (PM).

The PM is the elected leader of the magority parliamentary party. The general public has no direct vote in who is to be PM. The PM can be ousted in a party room vote as reasonably short notice. The role of the PM as the Head of Government is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Not having a pool of peers (perish the thought), the House of Lords becomes the Senate. Each of the States has six Senators (the Aust Capital Territory and Northern Territory get 2)who are elected using proportional representation.

The official Australian Head of State is QEII, but to all practical purposes her representative, the Governor General has that role. The GG is appointed/dismissed by QEII acting on the advise of the PM. In the last month the Governor General has changed from Sir William Deane (previously a High Court Judge) appointed by Labor PM Paul Keating and reappointed by Liberal PM John Howard to the Howard appointee of (ex Archbishop) Peter Hollingsworth.

The GG is a vice regal functionary whose responsibilities are mainly ceremonial, though they are the head of the armed forces. They generally serve fixed terms. Their political role is mainly limited to acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. However they do appoint the PM and hold reserve powers which include allowing the GG to dismiss the PM, as in 1975.

This set up the unusual “check and balance” of the GG and the PM being able to dismiss each other. Provided the PM holds a working magority in the Parliament, this is not an issue.

A key difference between the US and is the separation of the roles of head of government and head of state. The US President has both roles. Hence the “crisis” around the last US election would not occur in Australia. The GG as Head of State, would simply appoint somebody to act as caretaker Prime Minister until count/legal aspects were resolved.

11

I forgot to say this about the UK. The Prime Minister is a normal MP who is elected to the position by the parliamentary party (i.e. the other MPs in his or her party), and the public don’t get a say, although local non-Parliamentary party workers do get to vote (the exact systems differ from party to party). Although the Queen is nominally the big cheese, in practice she solely rubber-stamps legislation and approves the government. If she tried anything more political public support would plummet like a bag of kittens from a skyscraper.

12

A small correction to woolly’s post: there are 12 senators from each Australian state. Another major difference between us and the Brits is that we do have a written constitution.

Parliamentary terms for the lower house are three years, but the Prime Minister can call an election any time prior to this. There is no fixed election cycle (although elections are always on a Saturday). Senators normally hold office for six years, but the PM may call a double dissolution election if the senate has twice rejected important legislation sent to it by the House. In this case, the full Senate goes to the polls with the first to get quota then serving six years and the others only three.

The official Parliament of Australia site is pretty good: http://www.aph.gov.au/parl.htm

13

I’m sorry, but this system is so different that I don’t know what you’re saying. The PM can ONLY call for new elections in these circumstances? Who gets to define “important”? And what is getting a quota?

14

The PM can call normal elections any time, but for a double dissolution (all Senate positions vacant) must convince the Governor General that important business has been obstructed by the Senate. In practice this is done by declaring that a certain piece of legislation is vital to the government’s programme and having the Senate reject the Bill twice. In principle I suppose the GG could tell the PM that he’s not convinced. A double dissolution is a way of negotiating an impasse between the houses (a joint sitting of the two houses can be held after such an election where the more numerous lower house is likely to have a majority).

As for quotas, as woolly mentioned, the Senate is kind of proportional representation. But this is done by a complicated preference count – the details of which I’ll spare you – which amounts to candidates having to reach a threshold number of votes to be declared elected. They are said to have reached quota (which varies depending on the number of Senators to be elected) and any excess of votes redistributed to other candidates depending on preferences. Some count of this kind is inevitable where you are electing multiple members on a preferential basis. It takes a fair while to count.

15

Japan has an upper house of 252 members, elected to six-year terms, and a lower house of 500 members, elected to four-year terms. The Prime Minister can declare a new election at any time (and so far they don’t seem to be too good at following the “not every six months” rule).

The elections are partly direct, and partly proportional. In the lower house, 300 members are elected by name from single-seat districts, and the remaining 200 are elected based on an additional ballot with which the voters choose a party to support, with seats being distributed based on what percentage each party gets, and the party leaders choosing who will receive the seats.

In theory, the PM is chosen by the ruling party, as in the UK. In practice, however, this is complicated by the fact that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party is not actually a party, but is more like a loose confederation of factions, each led by a charismatic leader (it is also neither liberal nor democratic, but that’s another issue). Junichiro Koizumi’s recent election by the parliament was actually rather uncertain, even though the LDP held an overwhelming majority, as he had to rally enough support from the ‘other’ parties to beat out rival LDP faction leader (and former PM) Ryutaro Hashimoto.

–sublight.

16

I think you’re having the experience I have so many times where I find I’ve underestimated the ignorance of the student. I have to back up three times just to get to the point where he has a point of reference.

I gather from the last post that proportional rep. is voting for the party instead of the candidate directly. is that what you mean? If not, what? Even if that is the case, I still don’t understand the point about quotas and redistributing votes. Sorry.

17

Proportional representation is a non-winner-takes-all system. If you think of a US election or a UK election or an Australian lower house election, seats are either won or lost by a party. Reagardlesss of whether you have first-past-the-post, runnoff or preferential voting, one person or party ends up winning and everyone else loses, no matter how close it is.

In PR parties get seats in proportion to their vote. If you get 15% of the votes, you get roughly 15% of the seats. In some places this is literally the case: you vote for a party, results are tallied and the party announces that the first 3 people from their list will serve.

In Australia, you don’t vote for a party, but for a candidate. Just to complicate matters, it looks like you vote for a party.

A Senate ballot paper consists of (say) 60 names. In order to record a valid vote, you have to fill in a preference for each box, right down to #60. That’s how the votes are actually recorded. During the mid-1980s it became clear that this was becoming too complex and a lot of people were voting informal due to accidentally skipping a number somewhere. Now you can vote “above the line”: record a preference for a party. This is applied as “I vote for the published ticket order of this party”.

On the practicalities of Senate voting, try the Australian Electoral Commission.

18

Just to complicate matters, the PM does not necessarily have to hold a Seat in the Commons, although almost invariably does.

19

The Canadian system is similar to the British and Australian ones. We have an elected House of Commons, and an appointed Senate. By convention, the PM must hold a seat in the Commons (although in the 19th century we had two PMs from the Senate). The PM is the leader of the party which commands a majority in the Commons, either by holding a majority of the seats, or by working out some sort of arrangement with one of more of the other parties. (None of this is actually written down in, say, a Constitution. We’ve followed the British practice in that respect - these principles are part of the unwritten constitutional conventions.)

The provincial governments are similarly organised, although all are unicameral.

There are no fixed dates for elections. Instead, section 4 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that the House of Commons (and provincial Legislative Assemblies) cannot last more than 5 years (except in war or similar crises). The Governor General can dissolve the Commons at any time, on the advice of the PM, but as a general rule, a particular House of Commons lasts for about 4 years.

A PM who tried to go to the polls much before that, without having a really good reason for an early election, risks being punished by the electorate for manipulating the system. A PM who lets the four year mark go by often looks like he’s afraid to meet the voters, and similarly may get punished. So, although there is no strict requirement for fixed election dates, the voters themselves provide the necessary discipline.

As well, the factors listed by APB also apply to Canadian elections, particularly the weather. You think campaigning in northern Scotland in December is hard? Ha! Try going door to door in rural Canada when it’s -30 C. And summer time is so short, no sensible politician would risk interfering with summer vacations with an unwanted election.

Generally speaking, if there’s an election in the summer or winter, it means the government fell (e.g.the 1980 election in February, after the fall of the Clark government; the 1974 election in July, after the fall of the Trudeau government), or is reaching the end of its mandate and was forced to the polls.