Builds on Unit 3 - Democracy and the study of legislatures by examining the executive branch — who holds power, how they get it, and what they do with it. This unit draws on Chapter 10 of Dickovick & Eastwood and introduces the central debate between presidential and parliamentary systems as models of democratic governance.
Key Concepts
- The executive branch executes and administers laws; in authoritarian regimes it often acts without a functioning legislature.
- The two foundational models of executive structure are presidentialism (USA) and parliamentarism (UK); semi-presidential systems (France, Russia) blend both.
- Executives hold three types of power: formal (constitutional), partisan (party leverage), and informal (persuasion, patronage).
- Coalitions are central to parliamentary governance; different logics of coalition formation produce different political outcomes.
- The debate over whether parliamentarism is better for democracy than presidentialism is one of the field’s most contested questions — and a methodological lesson in correlation vs. causation.
- Delegative democracy and populism describe executive styles where power becomes highly personalized.
- Consociational arrangements offer a third path: power-sharing mechanisms across divided societies.
Branches of Government and the Division of Power
The traditional view of the division of power among different branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — is simplified and does not reflect reality in most states. In authoritarian systems, power is concentrated in the executive, whether in a single figure or a collective (as in the case of a junta). The other institutions of state are non-existent or weak. Even in democratic systems, the executive often plays a more significant role than the legislature.
What Is the Executive?
Executives earn their name because they execute or administer policies and laws. In representative democracies, executives implement laws passed by legislatures. In authoritarian regimes, executives may act without a functioning legislature altogether.
The executive has two interrelated elements: first, the political executive (the government), and second, the public administration (the civil service or bureaucracy). The political executive is comprised of three parts: the Head of State, the Head of Government, and the rest of the government (cabinet). In addition, these members of the executive have personal staff that will change when they do. They are also supported by the bureaucracy — civil servants who remain even when there is a change of leadership or government. Ideally, the permanent bureaucracy is non-partisan.
Executives also contribute to lawmaking: they send budget requests to legislatures, work with legislators to formulate policy, sign bills into law, or veto them. They shape the legislative agenda by deciding which initiatives come to the floor for debate.
The executive branch runs the government bureaucracy — e.g., the U.S. Department of Defense or a European Ministry of Health. These institutions employ large numbers of civil servants and officials. Because of this, the executive is held responsible for the quality of government action: when social services improve, executives claim credit; when wars fail, executives take the blame.
The Executive's Three Powers
The executive holds the pen (lawmaking), the pistol (military command), and some control over the purse (budget). This makes it potentially the most powerful branch of government.
Head of State vs. Head of Government
| Role | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Head of State | Country’s symbolic national representative | Monarchs, ceremonial presidents |
| Head of Government | Responsible for forming governments and implementing policy | Prime ministers, most presidents |
- In presidential systems, one person often combines both roles.
- In parliamentary systems, these roles are frequently separated (e.g., UK: monarch is head of state; PM is head of government).
- In some countries (India, Israel), a ceremonial president is nominal head of state, while real political power rests with the prime minister.
- In some parliamentary countries, the head of state role is played by a monarch — we distinguish these by talking about constitutional monarchy, which contrasts with systems where the monarch continues to wield political power.
- Having a president does not necessarily make the system presidential — what matters is whether the president holds real executive power or serves a ceremonial role.
The Bureaucracy
Executive branches consist of both elected politicians and a more permanent bureaucracy (civil service). Elected officials can make a limited number of political appointments; the rest of the bureaucracy is expected to remain neutral, executing the law regardless of election results.
All modern states require an administrative structure to implement decisions taken by the government. The bureaucracy’s functions include:
- Providing services to citizens
- Implementing regulations (such as environmental standards)
- Issuing permits
- Adjudicating disputes (such as employer-employee tribunals)
- Advising the government on policy matters
Common Mistake
In many countries, “the government” refers specifically to the top elected officials and high-level appointees — not the entire state apparatus. When a parliamentary system forms a “new government,” the broader state bureaucracy largely remains unchanged.
The Ideal Bureaucracy
The ideal bureaucracy must be divided into specialized functions. Civil servants should be hired on the basis of their technical competence and qualifications, then promoted or demoted based on merit. They have job security and are protected from arbitrary dismissal or dismissal for political reasons. The bureaucracy should be impersonal — it follows the rules and does not make decisions based on the personal opinions of civil servants. It serves the state and is capable of working under different governments.
Controlling the Bureaucracy
The bureaucracy is an important part of a state and is connected to state capacity. It is therefore important to think about oversight of the bureaucracy, because:
- Corruption may exist within the bureaucracy
- The bureaucracy may be self-serving
- The bureaucracy may be politically biased
Monitoring the work of the bureaucracy can occur through political appointments or through enforcement of standards by ombuds or independent commissions.
The Bureaucracy in Non-Democratic Systems
In non-democratic states, there is also a need for bureaucracies — though in failed states, public administration may not exist at all. In non-democratic states, the bureaucracy typically exists to serve the leadership (as opposed to being non-partisan). Postings are determined based on patronage or clientelism, and control is often based on coercion.
China's Anti-Corruption Drive
“Heads continue to roll as China’s anti-corruption drive enters second decade” — South China Morning Post, 1 Oct. 2023. This illustrates how even non-democratic states grapple with bureaucratic corruption and use coercive control mechanisms.
Types of Executive Structures
There are two basic structures, plus a hybrid:
| Type | Selection of Chief Executive | Relationship to Legislature | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presidential | Directly elected by the population | Independent; separate election | USA, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria |
| Parliamentary | Indirectly elected by parliament | Fused; depends on legislature’s confidence | UK, Germany, India, Japan |
| Semi-presidential | President directly elected; PM responsible to parliament | Mixed; president appoints PM but legislature can dismiss | France, Russia |
Presidentialism
Under presidentialism, the populace votes directly for a chief executive (the president) in a nationwide election. The president serves a fixed term and depends on the voting populace — not the legislature — for their position.
Electoral rules vary by country:
| Country | Presidential Electoral Rule |
|---|---|
| Mexico | Top vote-getter wins (plurality; no majority required) |
| France | Two-round system: runoff between top two if no majority in round one |
| United States | Electoral college (not a direct popular vote) |
The president is not part of the legislature — this is the principle of separation of powers. Presidential systems feature a legislature as a separate and independent branch. The intricate relationship between branches is known as checks and balances:
- Legislature passes laws; president executes them
- President may veto legislation; legislature can often override with a supermajority
- Judiciary interprets law and may strike down unconstitutional provisions
Parliamentarism
Parliamentarism works through a two-step process:
This is an indirect election — most voters never cast a ballot directly for the individual who becomes head of government. Titles vary: prime minister, premier, chancellor.
As compared to the separation of powers in presidential systems, parliamentary systems have fusion of power — the head of government is a member of the legislature. The executive’s power is fused with legislative power:
- High party unity — “backbench” legislators support executive proposals to avoid triggering a no-confidence vote
- The legislature can vote out the government via a vote of no confidence, making executive removal far easier than presidential impeachment
Remember
Parliamentary systems often feature many large parties, so when no party commands a majority, the selection of the head of government depends on coalition negotiations.
Semi-Presidential Systems
Semi-presidential systems combine both models:
- A directly elected president serves as head of state
- A prime minister is chosen separately as head of government and is responsible to the legislature
France is the canonical example — the first semi-presidential system, introduced in 1958. It has since been adopted by other countries, including Russia, Romania, Portugal, Lithuania, and Taiwan. Iran adds further complexity: the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council of clerics hold more real power than the elected president.
Changing the Political Executive
Changing the political executive happens differently in each system type:
Presidential system:
- Election — held at fixed intervals
- Term limits
- Impeachment
Parliamentary system:
- Losing a general election
- Losing a vote of no confidence in the legislature (governments serve only so long as they have the confidence of the legislature)
- A coalition partner withdraws from government
- The prime minister’s party rebels and votes to change leader
- The prime minister resigns
Sources of Executive Power
Executives hold three analytically distinct types of power:
1. Formal Powers
Formal powers are those possessed by a political actor as a function of their constitutional or legal position. They include:
| Power | Description |
|---|---|
| Veto | Executive rejects a law passed by the legislature; legislature may override |
| Dissolving the legislature | Executive disbands parliament, usually triggering new elections |
| Decree | Executive-made order that has the force of law without passing through the legislature |
| Executive order | Order to the bureaucracy determining how it should enact or interpret the law |
| State of emergency | Temporarily suspends guarantees and rights; confers extraordinary powers |
| Term limits | Constitutional restriction on time in office |
| Introducing legislation | Executive proposes bills, budget requests, and policy initiatives to the legislature |
| Appointment powers | Power to appoint other members of government and fill key positions |
| Impeachment | Legislative process to remove an executive from office |
Snap Elections and the Political Business Cycle
In the UK, elections must be held at least every five years, but the prime minister may call an early (“snap”) election at a politically advantageous moment — for instance, after popular spending increases. This is known as exploiting the political business cycle.
Checks on executive power in democracies:
- Periodic elections — executives cannot remain without popular support
- Constitutional limitations — guaranteed rights the executive cannot infringe; the rule of law constrains executive action
- Separation of powers — judicial and legislative branches provide oversight; federalism divides power across government levels
- Term limits — strict caps on time in office
In authoritarian systems, all of these limits are either reduced or non-existent.
Executive authority also depends on contextual factors:
- Whether the system is federal, quasi-federal, or unitary
- The extent to which society is divided
- The electoral system in use
- The popularity of the leader/government, which in turn may depend on the state of the economy, the skills of the leader, and the qualities of the opposition
Legislative mechanisms to control the executive:
- Public rebuke or censure
- Withholding funds from executive agencies
- Impeachment (presidential systems)
- Vote of no confidence (parliamentary systems)
Germany's Constructive Vote of No Confidence
In Germany, a legislative majority voting no confidence must simultaneously propose a new government to replace the old one. This ensures continuity of government and prevents a power vacuum.
2. Partisan Powers
Partisan powers are the powers accruing to an executive by virtue of their leverage over members of a political party. These are often more important than formal powers in practice.
Key source: control over the party’s candidate list. If executive leaders decide who appears on the party list for elections, those candidates have strong incentives to remain loyal to the executive.
Conversely, where candidates are chosen in primary elections by voters, legislators tend to be more loyal to constituents than to party leadership — weakening the executive’s partisan leverage. The extent of partisan powers will also vary depending on internal party rules governing leadership selection, discipline, and candidate nomination.
Two Contrasting Cases
- UK: A PM who tightly controls their party can “ram legislation through” a compliant parliament — a “rubber-stamp” parliament.
- Brazil: Presidents can have so little partisan power that they struggle to pass even significant legislation through the legislature.
3. Informal Powers
Informal powers are those not “official” but based on custom, convention, or other sources of influence:
- Bully pulpit: The ability to shape public debate and opinion through speeches and media presence
- Power to persuade: Scholar Richard Neustadt argued this is the most essential power of the American president — formal authority alone does not control the legislature or bureaucracy
- Patronage: Using government favors (typically employment) to garner political support
- Clientelism: Exchanging political favors (government employment or services) for political support
Common Mistake
Patronage and clientelism are generally considered poor governance — they distort resource allocation for political ends — but they are real and consequential informal powers that many executives hold.
Coalitions
A coalition is a group of two or more political parties that governs by sharing executive power and responsibilities.
Coalitions form when no single party commands the majority needed to pass legislation or hold government. They are most common under proportional representation (PR) systems, which tend to produce multiparty legislatures.
In parliamentary systems, the largest party usually leads coalition formation. Junior partners demand cabinet appointments (ministerial portfolios) as their reward for joining.
Types of Coalition (the “Santa Gabriela” Example)
Hypothetical parliament: 100 seats, parties arrayed left to right: XL (30), L (15), C (7), R (27), XR (21). A governing majority requires 51+ seats.
| Coalition Type | Logic | Example | Seats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum Winning | No surplus parties beyond what is needed to govern; removing any one party drops below 50% | XL–XR–L or C–R–L | 55 |
| Minimum Connected Winning | Minimum winning AND all parties are adjacent on the political spectrum | C–R–L | 55 |
| Minimum Size | Closest possible to the 50%+1 threshold | XL–C | 51 |
| Minimum Number of Parties | Fewest parties needed to form a majority | XL–R | 57 |
| Median Party | Includes the median (middle) party on the political spectrum | XL–C | 51 |
| Minimum Range | Minimum number of “spaces” between parties on the policy spectrum | R–C–XR | 63 |
| Grand Coalition | Two or more major parties holding a supermajority; used in national crises | UK WWII (Conservatives + Liberals + Labour); Germany 2005–2009 | >50% |
| Minority Government | No party or coalition reaches 50%; government is tenuous | Canada under Harper 2008–2011 (46% of seats) | <50% |
Exam Alert
Know the distinction between minimum winning, minimum connected winning, and minimum size coalitions — these are frequently tested. The key variable is the logic behind each: surplus parties, ideological adjacency, or seat minimization.
Coalition formation logic: Parties prefer to be in government (to affect policy) rather than opposition. They prefer small coalitions close to 51% to maximize their relative power within the coalition — a party holding 33% of seats has much more leverage in a 55-seat coalition than in a 70-seat one.
Causes and Effects: What Explains Executive Stability?
The Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism Debate
One of the field’s central debates: Are parliamentary systems better for democracy than presidential systems? Determining which is “better” involves making a normative judgement. A more productive framing is to examine which systems might promote democracy, stability, and economic growth — studying different systems to examine different outcomes. We need to be aware of the diversity of cases that could be examined in MSS or MDS studies.
Exam Alert
Know Linz’s five arguments and the Mainwaring/Shugart critique. The debate is a key exam topic.
Juan Linz’s Case for Parliamentarism1
Linz identifies five reasons presidential systems endanger democracy:
| Argument | Problem with Presidentialism | Advantage of Parliamentarism |
|---|---|---|
| Competing vs. Clear Legitimacy | Power is divided between legislature and executive — unclear who is responsible | Executive clearly heads government |
| Fixed vs. Flexible Terms | Fixed terms make removing an unpopular government difficult | Governments can be replaced any time via confidence vote |
| Winner-Take-All vs. Power Sharing | Single party controls the executive | Coalition cabinets include multiple parties |
| Presidential vs. PM “Style” | Presidents tend toward authoritarian, bombastic leadership | PMs negotiate and compromise |
| Outsider vs. Insider Executives | Presidents are more likely to be political outsiders | Parliamentary leaders have decades of experience |
Linz’s conclusion: These factors collectively increase the likelihood that presidential systems will be taken over by authoritarians.
Mainwaring and Shugart’s Critique2
| Critique | Argument |
|---|---|
| Theoretical | Parliamentarism can be just as “winner-take-all” — a PM with a strong majority and tight party control may have more concentrated power than a president |
| Empirical | Presidential systems are most common in poorer countries (Latin America, Africa); parliamentarism prevails in wealthier Europe — it may be wealth, not system type, causing democratic success |
| Selection | Parliamentary systems are also more common in small countries, islands, and former British colonies — these factors independently increase the likelihood of democracy |
Correlation Is Not Causation
Just because parliamentary Germany is more democratic than Iran (which has an elected president) does not mean parliamentarism causes democratic success. We must control for confounding variables — especially wealth — before making causal claims.
India as a Test Case
India: relatively poor, highly unequal, over a billion people, many religious and ethnic groups — yet has maintained parliamentary democracy for decades. Does parliamentarism explain India’s democratic record, or do other factors? The Indian case is a valuable hypothesis test for Linz’s argument.
Delegative Democracy
Guillermo O’Donnell identifies a distinct type of presidential rule: delegative democracy.3
In delegative democracies, a president is elected and then governs however they see fit. Power is concentrated in a single executive who considers themselves to have been “delegated” authority for their term. Key features:
- Respects elections and term limits (so technically democratic)
- Few checks from courts or legislatures
- Little horizontal accountability
- Found across developing world: Latin America, parts of Asia and Africa
Remember
Delegative democracy differs from authoritarianism: elections still occur. But it differs from liberal democracy: accountability beyond elections is minimal.
Populism and Executive Power
Populism is a political approach in which leaders make direct appeals to “the people” and seek to develop personalistic ties with the masses.
Kenneth Roberts argues the most important characteristic of populism is a leader who establishes personalistic links with the people — this tends to happen when other institutions are weak.4
Historical pattern: most significant in 1930s–1940s Latin America, with charismatic presidents spending large sums on the working classes.
Roberts's Revision
Some 1990s populists — Fujimori (Peru), Menem (Argentina), Pérez (Venezuela) — implemented neoliberal free-market reforms, not expansive spending. Roberts concludes that populism is less about economic excess and more about the chronic weakness of institutions outside the executive.
How executives affect the economy:
- Propose budgets, collect taxes, regulate markets
- Appoint key economic officials (e.g., central bank governors)
- Make major interventions: nationalizing or privatizing companies, bailouts
- Strong executives may promote development (e.g., East Asian developmental states, China’s economic decisions by central officials)
- OR strong executives may damage the economy through populism and patronage
Parliamentary Stability and Instability
Parliamentary systems vary enormously in executive stability.
Italy: Unstable Coalitions, Stable Regime
Italy changed prime ministers nearly 40 times since WWI; the United States has had 12 presidents in the same period. The average Italian government lasts about one year. Yet Italy’s constitution and basic regime structure have persisted. This illustrates a key distinction: unstable governing coalitions within a stable regime.
Some continuity still exists: several prime ministers (e.g., Berlusconi) have held the office three or more times, and some periods have seen relative stability (Berlusconi, 2001–2006).
Factors that determine government stability:
- Political parties and how they operate
- Electoral rules
- Rules governing votes of no confidence
- Whether party leaders can “discipline” rank-and-file members
- History and social context
Flip side of instability: many parliamentary systems are inclusive, incorporating diverse parties and interests into government. This can be especially important in ethnically divided societies.
Consociational Democracy
Consociational arrangements are systems that use formal mechanisms to coordinate different groups sharing access to power.5
Examples:
- Netherlands, Austria, Denmark: grand coalition cabinets; powerful advisory councils reflecting all major actors
- Colombia: the two leading parties agreed to alternate the presidency
- Lebanon: executive posts divided among different religious groups
Arend Lijphart’s argument: executives need not be “winner-take-all” even without parliamentarism, if other factors push toward social consensus.
Thinking Comparatively: Beyond the American and British Models
The UK (parliamentary) and USA (presidential) are the two archetypes — but looking only at them obscures the enormous global variety.
Case Comparison Table
| Country | Executive Structure |
|---|---|
| Brazil | Directly elected president; runoff if no first-round majority; weak partisan powers, but can issue decrees |
| China | President is head of state/chief executive; same person often heads Communist Party and military; premier heads government in legislature |
| France | Semi-presidential; president directly elected, appoints PM subject to legislature’s approval; president can dissolve legislature |
| Germany | Parliamentary; chancellor chosen by Bundestag, typically heads a coalition; ceremonial president has limited powers |
| India | Parliamentary; PM chosen by Lok Sabha, depends on its confidence; president chosen by legislature but has minor powers |
| Iran | Elected president exists, but real power lies with the Supreme Leader (ayatollah) and Guardian Council of clerics |
| Japan | Parliamentary; PM chosen by Diet (parliament), depends on confidence of House of Representatives; emperor is ceremonial head of state |
| Mexico | President directly elected; plurality wins; no re-election; PRI party (until ~2000) used dedazo (“pointing the finger”) to pick successors |
| Nigeria | President directly elected; prior to 1999, military coups were common; PDP attempted to alternate Muslim North and Christian South in executive |
| Russia | Semi-presidential; president directly elected, appoints PM subject to legislature; Putin wielded authority both as president and PM |
| United Kingdom | PM elected by House of Commons; strong partisan powers; monarch is ceremonial head of state |
| United States | President chosen by electoral college; executive checked by legislature; veto power but cannot dissolve legislature; relatively weak partisan powers |
Methodological Lesson: Case Selection
Exam Alert
The presidentialism/parliamentarism debate illustrates the importance of case selection in comparative research.
Rules for good case selection:
- Use most-similar-systems (MSS) or most-different-systems (MDS) designs to isolate causal factors
- Avoid selection on the dependent variable — do not study only countries with similar outcomes and infer causation
- Do not bring preconceptions or biases that will compromise honest assessment
A Flawed Comparison
Comparing a low-income presidential country in Africa with a long-established parliamentary regime in northern Europe and concluding presidentialism causes poor democracy is an example of selection on the dependent variable. Many other variables — wealth, colonial history, size — differ between these cases.
Chapter Summary
- Executive branches execute and administer laws in representative democracies; in authoritarian regimes, executives often dominate unchecked.
- The two main structural types are parliamentary and presidential, with semi-presidential hybrids in countries like France and Russia.
- The Westminster model (UK) is the original parliamentary archetype; presidential regimes predominate in the Americas and Africa.
- Executives hold formal powers (constitutional), partisan powers (party leverage), and informal powers (persuasion, patronage, public opinion).
- The debate over presidentialism vs. parliamentarism remains unresolved; the correlation between parliamentarism and democracy may be driven by wealth and colonial heritage, not system type.
- Powerful executives have been associated with delegative democracy, populism, and economic harm — but also with state-led development.
- Parliamentary systems range from highly stable (Germany) to highly unstable (Italy), shaped by party systems, electoral rules, and social context.
- Consociational arrangements demonstrate that power-sharing is possible under either presidential or parliamentary frameworks.
Key Scholars
| Scholar | Work | Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Juan Linz | ”The Perils of Presidentialism” (1990); “The Virtues of Parliamentarism” (1990) | Parliamentary systems are better for democracy for five reasons: clearer legitimacy, flexible terms, power sharing, PM style, and insider executives |
| Scott Mainwaring & Matthew Shugart | ”Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal” (1997) | Parliamentarism can be just as winner-take-all; wealth and colonial heritage may explain the correlation with democracy |
| Guillermo O’Donnell | ”Delegative Democracy” (1994) | Some presidential systems concentrate power in the executive beyond normal democratic accountability without becoming fully authoritarian |
| Kenneth Roberts | ”Neoliberalism and the Transformation of Populism in Latin America: The Peruvian Case” (1995) | Populism is primarily about personalistic leadership and weak institutions, not necessarily excessive spending |
| Arend Lijphart | ”Consociational Democracy” (1969) | Power-sharing through grand coalitions and elite agreements can sustain democracy even in divided societies |
Definitions
Executive The branch of government, or the individual(s) at the top of that branch, that executes or administers policies and laws in a country.
Bureaucracy The organization of unelected officials, often considered part of the executive branch, that implements, executes, and enforces laws and policies.
Head of State A person with executive functions who is a country’s symbolic representative, including elected presidents and unelected monarchs.
Head of Government The top executive official responsible for forming governments and formulating and implementing policies.
Prime Minister A chief executive in a parliamentary system of government.
President An executive leader who typically combines the functions of head of state and head of government and is not directly responsible to a legislature.
Monarch A head of state in a monarchy who usually inherits a position for life and may have either substantial political powers or very limited ceremonial powers.
Government (in the executive context) The set of top elected executive officials and high-level political appointees that shape and orient policy; also refers to the broader administrative apparatus of the state.
Administration The bureaucracy of state officials, usually considered part of the executive branch, that executes policy.
Executive-Legislative Relations The set of political relationships between the executive branch (which executes laws/policies) and the legislative branch (which often has the authority to pass those laws/policies).
Presidentialism A system of government in which a president serves as chief executive, being independent of the legislature and often combining the functions of head of state and head of government.
Parliamentarism A system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature.
Semi-presidential System A mixed or hybrid system combining aspects of presidentialism and parliamentarism; features both a directly elected president and a prime minister responsible to the legislature.
Direct Election (executive context) An electoral system in which voters cast a vote directly for the head of government or head of state.
Indirect Election (executive context) An electoral system in which most voters never cast a ballot directly for the individual who becomes head of government.
Formal Powers The powers possessed by a political actor, such as a chief executive, as a function of their constitutional or legal position.
Veto An act of executive power in which an executive rejects a law passed by a legislature.
Dissolving the Legislature The practice of a chief executive disbanding the legislature, often accompanied in a democratic regime by the calling of new elections.
Decree An executive-made order that has the force of law despite not being passed through a legislature.
Executive Order An order made by a chief executive or top official to the bureaucracy that determines how the bureaucracy should enact or interpret the law.
State of Emergency A condition allowed by some constitutions in which guarantees, rights, or provisions are temporarily limited, justified by emergencies or exceptional circumstances.
Term Limit A restriction on the number of times or total amount of time a political official can serve in a given position.
Impeachment A process by which a legislature initiates proceedings to determine whether an official — often a top-ranking executive official — should be removed from office.
Vote of No Confidence A vote taken by a legislature that expresses a lack of support for the government or executive; if successful, often results in the dissolution of the government and the calling of new legislative elections.
Constructive Vote of No Confidence A variant (used in Germany) in which a legislative majority voting no confidence must simultaneously propose a replacement government, ensuring continuity.
Partisan Powers The powers accruing to a government official, such as a chief executive, by virtue of the official’s leverage or power over members of a political party.
Coalition A group of two or more political parties that governs by sharing executive power and responsibilities.
Portfolio The set of duties and tasks that correspond to a given ministerial office.
Cabinet The group of senior officials in the executive branch, including ministers, who advise the head of government or head of state.
Minimum Winning Coalition A governing coalition that contains no surplus parties beyond those required to form a government.
Minimum Connected Winning Coalition A minimum winning coalition in which all parties are “connected” or adjacent to one another on the political spectrum.
Minimum Size Coalition A governing coalition that is closest to the threshold needed to govern, typically 50 percent of legislative seats plus one seat.
Grand Coalition A governing coalition composed of two or more major parties that hold a supermajority of legislative seats and represent a supermajority of the electorate.
Informal Powers Those powers possessed by an officeholder that are not “official” but rather based on custom, convention, or other sources of influence.
Patronage The use of government favors, typically in the form of employment, to garner political support.
Clientelism The practice of exchanging political favors, often in the form of government employment or services, for political support.
Delegative Democracy A type of democracy (O’Donnell) in which an elected president governs however they see fit, with power concentrated in the executive and few checks from courts or the legislature.
Populism A political approach in which leaders, often heads of government, make direct appeals to “the people” and seek to develop personalistic ties with the masses; associated with weak institutional constraints on the executive.
Junta A collective form of authoritarian executive in which a group (typically military officers) holds power.
Constitutional Monarchy A system in which a monarch serves as head of state within the limits of a constitution, holding a ceremonial role while real political power rests with elected officials.
Separation of Powers A principle of governmental organization in which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are independent of one another, as in presidential systems.
Fusion of Power A principle of governmental organization in which executive and legislative authority are combined, as in parliamentary systems where the head of government is a member of the legislature.
Consociational (Arrangements) Systems that use formal mechanisms to coordinate different groups sharing access to power; associated with consensus-building in divided societies.
Footnotes
-
Juan Linz, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” Journal of Democracy 1, no. 1 (1990): 51–69; and “The Virtues of Parliamentarism,” Journal of Democracy 1, no. 4 (1990): 84–91. ↩
-
Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Soberg Shugart, “Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal,” Comparative Politics 29, no. 4 (1997): 449–471. ↩
-
Guillermo O’Donnell, “Delegative Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 5, no. 1 (1994): 55–69. ↩
-
Kenneth Roberts, “Neoliberalism and the Transformation of Populism in Latin America: The Peruvian Case,” World Politics 48, no. 1 (1995): 82–116. ↩
-
Arend Lijphart, “Consociational Democracy,” World Politics 21, no. 2 (1969): 207–225. ↩