Politics in Europe revision – Flashcards

- Europe: not only continent, but an idea and identity - Changing economically, demographically and sociologically helps structure cleavages - Cleavages: splits or divisions in a society that give rise to conflicts that may well be expressed in political form, often via the formation of opposing parties representing people on either side of the split Globalisation: - Contested term - Popular definitions agree that it is a process of worldwide interconnectedness, whether it be political, economic, technological, etc. People into empires: - Ethnicities scattered: Germanics, Greeks, Slavs, Celts, etc. - Athens, power in Europe, until wars and domination by Alexander the Great. Then controlled by the Romans, who imposed Latin and transportation of people (North Africa and Middle East) - Destruction of western part of Roman Empire by Franks, Visogoths and Vandals. - Roman Catholic Church took power under the Pope, and established the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne. Empires into nations: - Holy Roman Empire: Loose empire, divided when Vikings settled in Northern France and produced William of Normandy - Feudal system established as territories were dominated by different groups - Increased wealth, Christian Crusades in the Holy Land took place as well as exploration of new continents - Protestantism develops, but certain regions resist it (Spain + Portugal) - Rivalry between England and Spain, but Spain is defeated and the empire declines Nation into states: - Religious rivalry not only at international level but also intranational - Example of Hungary, fighting Islamic influence from Ottoman Empire, and Habsburg intervention to establish Roman Catholicism - These struggles led to the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) - Scandinavian countries in armed conflict with kings and princes of central and western Europe - France emerged as a centralised state with bureaucracy and a military maintained to fight wars. - Countries copied this model, and balance of power was achieved - Emergence of republic-monarchies, French revolution 1789 - Emergence of Napoleon, centralised nation and aggressive military campaign - Defeated by Prussia and Britain in Russia and in Waterloo in Belgium - Emergence of nationalism and liberalism, unification of Italy and Germany Balance of power: Equilibrium existing between states when resources are sufficiently evenly distributed to ensure that no single state can dominate the others States into blocs: - Germany overseas expansion, European alliances emerged and led to WWI - Russian revolution and pulled out of the war - Germany and Austria-Hungary starved into signing armistice - Europe literally redrawn - Emergence of new states - Success of fascist dictators - Nazi-Soviet pact and start of WW2 - American involvement in 1941 after Pearl Harbour - Japanese surrender through nuclear means - Soviet presence in Europe after WW2 - USA became anti-communist and economic and military involvement in Europe - Division of Germany - Threat of communism, US efforts to secure a peaceful western Europe led to ECSC and eventually the EEC. Now the European Union - Improved relations between east and west, anticolonialism - Nevertheless, liberalism and freedom not granted by Soviet Union Fascism in Europe: Characterised by its opposition to communism, though often with anti-minority aspects The new Europe: - Collapse of the Soviet Union after Gorbachev and his glasnost and perestroika policies - Overthrow of communist dictatorship, fall of Berlin Wall -. Yeltsin attempt to hold on to Russian regional power but could not - Baltic states joined the EU and NATO - Europe now more united

Europe's economy - rich in variation: - Natural resources are plentiful in Europe - Self sufficient in agriculture, but in north, dairy and meat predominate, in south, citrus, olives and grapes predominate, and in the east, the more cereal and other arable crops there are - German economy is biggest in Europe, largest GDP. Economy size correlated with population? - GDP per capita, better estimate, shows the lower living standards in eastern Europe - Former communist countries took time to join EU Regions: - German example, very wealthy and very poor regions - Wealth of regions previously correlated with industrialisation, but economy is now more service centred Postindustrialism?: - Most wealthy European states can be labelled postindustrial: service sector thrives - 69% of EU population employed in services - Lest we forget that most service jobs are low-status and low-paid. Transition: - Eastern Europe not yet postindustrial. - Still industrial, and regions focusing on primary sector are at a disadvantage - Though advancements have been made, transition of economies of post-communist Europe will not be overnight. - Most have chosen privatisation of state sectors, and some have taken other strategies, such as with currency - Still issues with unemployment - Slovenia, part of Yugoslav state, best economy of former communist countries. First to join Eurozone. Globalisation and/or Europeanisation?: - Lot of pessimistic claims that Europe is doomed to lose jobs to NIC's - But the evidence shows that unlike the US, this isn+t the case National and patterned variation: - Europeanisation does not mean uniformity - History matters in economics - Most economies in Europe are mixed economies - Economies are grouped as 'liberal', 'coordinated' or 'hybrids' - Also variation in welfare states - Social democratic: Extensive high quality services open to all irrespective of income, transfer payments to those too old or unable to work (Scandinavia) - Liberal: Basic services, many available only via means testing, limited transfer payments, safety net for the poor (UK) - Conservative, corporatist: Insurance based welfare schemes, many of which are administered by unions and employers, traditional family structures - It is possible to switch welfare states or get a hybrid Whatever happened to 'the classless society'?: - Some European countries still divided into classes, though these are different in every country - Manual working class the biggest in Europe - Growth of the middle class has not been accompanied by greater equality in wages, as often shift to service sectors are low paid - Classless society not arrived yet - Gender gap has been closed a great deal, but education still influences class - Correlation between richness and equality of a country Women - working but not yet winning?: - Influence of religion upon involvement of women in workforce - In Scandinavia, better conditions, but only when government becomes involved. Otherwise not - Influence of patterns of work: part time? - Attempts to achieve cultural change through politics: more women in cabinets In theory if not in practice - religion in Europe: - Religion still influential in some aspects of society, i.e: abortion laws - Yet, more secularisation in Europe Composition and identity: multi-ethnic, multi-national - and European?: - Individual self-identification now includes some sort of national or ethnic element - Multiple identities also present - Some nations feel more 'European' than others - Emergence of mass European identity? Overall: - Keep in mind differences between European nations while exploring Europe

Introduction: Why member states matter: - Three agendas of studying European integration - First phase, dominated by international relations theories, neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism. Largely ignored the state - Second phase, understanding the EU as a political system, use of comparative politics and understanding the EU as a polity (governance turn) - Third phase, 1990's onwards, focus on the state, intertwined with IR debates and political science - What is meant by 'member state'?: All political actors and institutions within a member state, not simply national governments - How and why do member states matter to understanding the EU?: They are key players in decision making and in the architecture of the EU. Local governments also matter in implementing EU policy. - How do member states matter in the real world of the EU?: First, the state of the European Union is interactive with the union in solutions. Second, in terms of territoriality, the state represents legitimacy, democracy and identity. The EU has made the state more permeable. Softer boundaries as well as para-public agencies. Third, member states are key players in the politics of the EU. Territorial-based interests projected upwards. Fourth, the EU is a relevant force in domestic politics. - Dynamic interaction of member states and the EU is important in a number of specific ways: National government and other actors devise ways of making effective inputs and EU business into the political process at the supranational level. EU created changing opportunity structures, though these can be limiting at times. Should the logic of political action in Brussels prevail, or that of the state? Are the EU institutions the agents of national governments? Intergovernmentalism: the member state at the centre of EU bargaining - Hoffman: - EU is seen as venture in cooperation among states, which are rational actors - Due to influence of greater economic interdependence, the EU is a form of 'international regime' - Doesn't weaken traditional state, but strengthens it. - Creation of a regime doesn't lead to the creation of others by spillover effect. - Then, Milward: - Member states don't renounce part of their sovereignty in creating common EU institutions - Revival of intergovernmentalism, Garrett: - European integration is for each state to maximise gains. - Liberal intergovernmentalism, Moravcsik: - The state is a rational actor in Europe - Power in the EU is the result of bargaining among states - Liberal theory explains the formation of national preferences - Criticisms: First, focusing on national governments neglects the internal diversity. Second, in assuming that only large states exercise power, the decision making process is simplified. Third, they see institutions as puppets of member states, though these institutions are able to express their own ideas and interests. Lastly, interests not only advanced through governments. Institutionalism and member state-EU relations: - Institutions are more than the reflections of underlying social forces - Institutions do more than produce a neutral arena for political interaction - Three variants: - Rational choice Institutionalism: Application of liberal intergovernmentalism to institutions. Institutions as agents to reduce the transaction costs in the functioning - Sociological institutionalism: Sociology of institutions. Did they depart from the interests of nations to its individual interests? Issues of identity and culture. - Historical institutionalism: Alert of the role in time, politics seen as a path dependent process with unforeseen consequences and critical situations, Institutions should be considered as structures capable of integrating experiences and norms over the course of time. - All offer insights into the way in which member states interact with the EU - Emergence of federal analysis Governance approaches and member state-EU relations: - Governance - Exploration of policy networks - Plurality - Relationships between European integration and democracy Towards a domestic politics of the EU?: - More light on the member states, underexplored research area. - Impossible to understand EU politics without considering the domestic politics. - Need to keep in mind of the variations of the 27 states - EU's impact on member states Analysing Europeanisation: - Europeanisation: impact of integration upon member states - Also, three propositions: - It strengthens the state (Moravcisk) - It creates a new multi-level politics (Sandholtz) - EU has transformed governance (Kohler-Koch) - These are 'precursors to the literature' of Europeanisation Origins: - Attributed to greater integration in the 1980's (Single European Act) - Enhanced by Maastricht - Enlargements of the EU (member states) Usages: - 5 Areas of Europeanisation: (Olsen) - Changes in external boundaries - Developing institutions at the European level - Central penetration of national systems of governance - Exporting forms of political organisation - Political unification project - Focus: Consequences of integration - Featherstone: Comparing and contrasting understandings of Europeanisation - Flockhart: Historical sociology of the process - Classification of impact of Europeanisation: three fold - Polity: institutions and patterns of governance - Policy - Politics: parties, public opinion, identity, etc. Concept: - One needs to make it clear how Europeanisation is used - European integration: concerned with political and policy development at the supranational level - Europeanisation: concerned with the consequences of this process for member states as well as non member states who are targets of EU policy - Definition remains contested - Significance of discourse - In France, Europeanisation seen as force resisting globalisation, and in the UK, seen as a force facilitating it Theory: - No theory of Europeanisation - Different schools affect the study of Europeanisation, i.e: neo-functionalism, new institutionalism - Each theory places more emphasis on different actors. New institutionalism places emphasis on institutions for example Methodological issues: - Clashes about methodology have led to increased attention to research design - Research design should test whether Europeanisation can be identified as the cause of domestic change - Differing models are due to varying research traditions Directionality: - Europeanisation: Circular rather than undirectional because of the bottom up nature of EU - Horizontal vs vertical? - Horizontal: transfer of concepts and policies between member states under circumstances where the EU has not played a legislative role - Vertical: EU's effect on public policy to impact on structures of governance - Research agenda reaching end of the road because pace of integration has slackened and enlargement has become a less important topic

Introduction: - The system of government in any modern democracy has: legislature, executive, judiciary and head of state - Legislature enacts laws - Executive runs the country - Judiciary adjudicates disputes between individuals and other legal entities - Head of state in charge - Executive is ultimate source of political power and decision-making capacity in modern democracies - Other organs of government, create system of checks and balances on the executive Separation or fusion of powers?: - Most important difference between constitutions: separation or fusion of powers between legislature and executive - This is owed to the distinction between presidential and parliamentary government systems Separation of powers regimes: - In separation of powers regimes there is a clear separation between legislature and the executive - Chief executive in this regime typically elected by the people and called a president - President elects cabinet of people responsible for particular policy areas and government depts. - Executive cannot dismiss the legislative and vice versa. - H/e, the legislature has not direct power to force the executive to do anything - Example: US - Senate approves members of cabinet Fusion of powers regimes: - Parliamentary governments: executive is constitutionally responsive to the legislature - Executive must retain the confidence of the legislature - Executive must resign if it loses a legislative motion of no confidence - Executive not directly elected by the people but indirectly by an elected parliament - Parliaments can also dismiss prime minister and cabinet - Also in power of prime minister to dismiss the legislature and force new legislative elections Splitting the difference? 'Semi-presidentialism': - President directly elected by the people who has exclusive right to nominate prime minister - May also dissolve the national assembly to call new elections - However, also a prime minister and cabinet with full responsibility for government policy, and who must maintain support in a directly elected legislature. - Legislature can dismiss the prime minister - No one can dismiss the president - Possible dispute between president and prime minister if from different parties Parliamentary government in modern Europe - Cycle: - One starts with an incumbent government, and one then asks if an election is legally required of PM seeks dissolution? If yes, dissolution of legislature and fresh elections. If no, incumbent government stays. If a majority of legislators do indeed still prefer the incumbent government, then the cycle repeats. But if a majority of legislators now want alternative executive, then they have constitutional authority to remove the incumbent and install preferred alternative. Other possibility is that the legislature is dissolved and there is an election for a new legislature The prime minister: chief executive: - Chief executive or head of government in modern European democracies: Prime ministers, thought in Austria and Germany, chancellors - Head of one of the main legislative parties. - Controls both the legislature and executive - In Britain: One party wins an overall majority of seats, Prime Minister is leader of the single party that controls the legislature, and at the same time, is also chief executive of the country. Chief executive, ability to control a legislative majority and party leader all under one person. Only real threat: within the party. - If a newly elected legislative isn't controlled by prime minister, then prime minister has lost the election. - If citizens want to change their chief executive, they do so by voting in legislative elections - Prime minister has formal power to hire and fire cabinet ministers - Legal right to dissolve the legislature and call an early election - Access to information about every branch of government - Methods of disposal: - First: legislative election, opposition can push prime minister to early election - Second: Change in majority coalition of legislators that keeps the government in office (vote of no confidence) - Third: from inside the party, loss of leadership - Overall: although primeministers can be powerful, their positions can be snatched from them suddenly The cabinet: - Prime minister and the cabinet: the government of the country - Cabinet comprises a set of ministers - Each minister has two roles: - Individual head of a government department - Member of cabinet that makes or approves important political decisions as a collective entity. - Cabinet member generally in charge of a government department. They have individual ministerial responsibility - H/e, most refuse to resign in response to problems in their dept., only resign in major catastrophes. - Collective cabinet responsibility - when cabinet makes a decision all are collectively responsible. - Cabinet confidentiality - might undermine the cabinet as a whole - No vetos in cabinet, but a minister can threaten to resign if a decision is made - Realistic way in which a fully specific and implementable policy proposal can be put to the cabinet for decision is for this to be developed within one or more government departments - Minister of dept. presents the proposal - Ministers may have little knowledge about other ministers' depts. Junior ministers: - Not members of the cabinet - Appointed to head subsections of the major depts of state - Appointed by prime ministers The head of state: - The president. Different roles depending on country - Often few constitutional powers - Some weaker than others. Strongest in France - Mostly weak constitutional role Monarchs: - Countries without president has monarchs as heads of state - Ceremonial role, but may vary between countries.

Parliaments and governments: - How much power to parliaments have in relations to governments? Wrong question in Europe. - Government elected by parliament and can be ousted from office by it. Parliament wields power through the government that it has elected - Significance of the party - When talking about parliament we are talking about interaction of a small number of political party groups - MPs directed by party - Parliament dominated by party groups - Any constraints imposed by parliament on government come not from a monolithic body but from one of possible sources: - One, rules that allow opposition to block or defeat government plans - Second, political cultural constraints that inhibit the government from railroading its proposals through in the face of strong objections from the opposition - Third, government might not have majority support in parliament in the first place - Government may receive only conditional support from its own MPs - King: Suggested that parliament could be better analysed in terms of a number of modes in which key players interact: - Interparty mode: relations between different actors in parliament and government are determined by their affiliations - Crossparty mode: ministers and MPs combine to interact on the basis of cross-party interests - Non-party mode: government and parliament interact without regard to party. (Corresponds to the traditional model that sees parliament and government as separate) - Lijphart: Two categories of democratic regime. Westminster majoritarian model vs consensus model - Majoritarian system: government of the day has an assured majority among MPs and can rely on getting all of its legislation through virtually unscathed. Cabinet dictatorship. Role of opposition to criticise the government rather than to influence it. - Consensus model: Finding broad consensus in parliament if possible rather than on merely imposing the will of the parliamentary majority. Cabinets tend to have a genuine give and take relationship with parliament. - Problems with using variations in parliamentary rules to explain variations in power: On paper, the rules may imply that a parliament wields much more power than it actually does, and that it is questionable how far differences in rules can explain anything - Therefore: in Lijphart's majoritarian model, all relationships between gvts and parliaments take place in the interparty mode. In consensus model, greater non-party or cross-party mode. The roles of parliaments: 1. Appointing and dismissing governments: Votes of no confidence 2. Parliaments and law-making: in parliamentary systems, governments can expect to see the great majority of their proposals accepted by parliament. Mostly initiated by government. Great variation in all European parliaments. - In parliaments in majoritarian systems, the government tends to control the parliamentary agenda, whereas in consensual systems the agenda is decided either by agreement among the party groups or by the president of parliament after consultation with the party groups. - In consensual parliaments the most important work is done in committees, whereas in parliaments in majoritarian systems the floor of the chamber is the main arena - In consensual parliaments, bills typically go to committees before they are debated by the full parliaments 3. Parliaments and law-making in majoritarian countries: Government dominated parliaments. Greece, Britain, France and Ireland. Example of Britain, party not in power gets more power than those in other countries. Seek to criticise. Interparty mode. 4. Parliaments and law-making in consensus countries: Austria, Germany, Scandinavia. negotiation and compromise. Cross party mode. Example of Scandinavia, government little power in determining the agenda. 5. Parliaments and oversight of government: All parliaments see themselves as having the role of overseeing the work of the government. Use of 'question time', extracting information from the government. Interpelaation. Question time but with debate. Use of committees set up to monitor government depts. These committees can be strong when they are small and numerous. If they are big, interest groups seek to colonise them. Parliaments and parties: - Problem with assessing arguments about the dominations of parliament by political parties or by government is that it is difficult to try to measure the power of any parliament - PPG unity means that the leaders of these parties are far more important people, politically, than the typical rank and file member of parliament - Most MPs forced to vote along party lines, and most do so out of loyalty - People vote for parties rather than for candidates, and MPs see themselves as members of their party's parliamentary groups. Voters vote for parties: - In Europe, not voting for candidates but parties - When people vote, they are helping to choose a government - Party ticket voting - Size of politician's personal vote is much less in Europe because the fate of European candidates is determined way more by national political forces - Incumbent candidates have much less of a built in advantage in Europe than they do in United States - If criticism of particular individuals of the party, they generally lose their seats - Party labels are valuable commodities in Europe Parliamentarians and party discipline: - Sometimes punishments for not voting along party lines - Extreme cases: expulsion from party - Keeps party discipline Parliamentarians and constituency representation: - MPs: Constituency representation. Promote and defend the interests of their geographical constituency - Constituency work takes up a lot of time of MPs, about half of time in Britain, and much lower in Poland - Electoral system determines this - In some countries, it is not required, not incentives given - Also determined by political culture European parliaments: one chamber or two?: - Main argument for bicameralism: second chamber can act as a check on the possibility of an overbearing majority in the lower house, and that it may be able to discuss policy proposals in a more reflective manner than the highly politicised lower house, applying sober second thoughts and drawing on non party technical expertise. - Main argument against: if the second chamber agrees with the first it is superfluous, and if it does not it is pernicious - Bicameralism is in decline - Can be conservative: effect is to protect the status quo - Depends by how much bargaining power each house possesses - Impact depends on the composition and the power of a second chamber - Mostly indirect election, left wing not as strong as right wing in upper chambers - Direct election in Poland, where it plays a significant role - Parliaments elsewhere: only one chamber - Upper house less power than the lower house, except in Italy, Belgium and Romania

Introduction: - Elections: central to representative government in Europe. Significance both symbolic and practical. Practical: formation of governments Symbolic: legitimises a country's political system in the eyes of its citizens - Variation across Europe in the precise set of electoral laws that determines how the votes that are cast are transformed into seats in the legislature - Electoral system can affect the nature of its party system, socio-demographic composition of the legislature, and likelihood that governments will be formed by a coalition of parties rather than just a single party - Referendums: used to obtain voters' decision on a specific issue Who votes?: - Universal adult franchise - Changing definitions of adulthood: Some countries from 16 to 20 - Qualifications needed to be an election candidate are the same as those for being a voter - Electoral register contains the names of all who are entitled to vote - Voter turn out higher in Europe than in the United States - Some countries it is compulsory - However, since 1970's, turnout has been decreasing When do people vote?: - In most countries: maximum period between elections, but not a minimum - Prime ministers have the power to recommend the dissolution of parliament to a head of state - France: presidential elections every 5 years - Also elections for local councils - Elections of European parliament - Voter fatigue? Types of electoral system: - Electoral systems: mechanisms that turn the votes cast by people on election day into seats to be occupied by deputies in the parliament. These structure the choices that the voters can make and converts these choices into a legislature - Most use proportional representation - No two European countries have electoral systems that are identical - Decided by political actors - Generally, systems have stayed the same, but changed in a few countries (i.e: Greece and Italy) - Majoritarian vs proportional representation systems. - PR systems: put more emphasis on the concept of proportionality, the numerical accuracy with which the votes cast for parties are translated into seats won in parliament. I.e: 25% of votes equals 25% of seats - Majoritarian systems: aim to not achieve high proportionality, but by prioritising other criteria they accept a certain level of disproportionality as inevitable Plurality and majority systems: - Only two European countries do not use an electoral system that has at least an element of PR, UK and France - UK: Country divided into constituencies, one of which has an MP in the House of Commons - Single member plurality/first past the post: MP with most votes wins - Merit of simplicity for voters: responsibility for interests of the constituency lie with MP - Critics of FPTP: 1. Person can be elected despite only getting 40% of total votes 2. Strategic voting 3. If used for national elections, might be unrepresentative - When a party has the will to change an electoral system it does not have the power and vice versa - Alternative vote: the single transferable vote in single-member constituencies. Voters rank candidates in order of presence - AV is a majority system, as opposed to plurality system, because the counting process continues until one candidate has a majority - Plural voting system: Only allowed to vote for a single candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins - Majority: multiple candidate until one candidate has a majority over all other remaining candidates. - No country in Europe uses AV to elect parliament. Though, in France, deputies are returned from single member constituencies, but there is provision for two rounds of voting - Two round double ballot system has one advantage over British one: gives supporters of losing first round candidates a chance to switch their second round vote to one of the serious contenders - Disadvantage, considers first round support rather than broad support Proportional representation: - Key to PR system: multi-member constituency. Seats are allocated to parties within each constituency in broad proportion to the votes each party receives. The larger the district magniture, the more proportional national election result List PR systems: - Each party presents a list of candidates in each constituency - Seats shared out among the parties in proportion to the votes they win, in accordance with a predetermined formula - Charateristics: 1. Electoral formulae: Most common is D'Hondt method and Sainte-Laguë method. Some methods favour larger parties and vice versa 2. District magnitude and higher tiers: Seat allocation method: just one factor determining proportionality. Another is district magnitude. The larger the district the more proportional it'll be. Higher tier seats in place to award parties to compensate them for any shortfall in the seats they won in the constituencies to increase proportionality Mixed systems: - MPs can be elected by two different routes - Voter has two votes, one to choose a local constituency MP and the other to choose a party list - Two types of link between the systems: 1. Compensatory mixed systems, the list seats are awarded to parties to ensure that their overall seat total is proportional to their list votes 2. Parallel, where the list seats are shared out purely on the basis of list votes - Mixed systems: best of both worlds: Citizens have individual MP but the list ensure that the relationship between seats and votes is much closer than it would be under a non-PR system. - Though, mixed systems have statistically significant lower levels of accountability, government effectiveness, control of corruption, representation of women in parliament and voter turnout Thresholds: - Prevents smaller parties from gaining seat - Threshold also set at constituency elections Which candidates get the list seats?: - In some countries: order of candidates drawn up by the party organisation is a fixed ranking that the voters cannot alter (non-preferential, closed or blocked lists). Decided within the party to be placed on top of the list. - In others: No default order, the voters decide. These are open or unblocked lists. Intra party electoral competition - Closed lists: Italy, Portugal, Germany - Open lists: Finland, Luxembourg, Poland - Trend: towards preference votes The single transferable vote: - Aims to give PR to the shades of opinion within the constituency - Voters: cast a vote by ranking as many as they wish of the candidates - Droop Quota - Any candidate that equals or exceeds Droop quota is declared elected - If not sufficient candidates, the votes are distributed and transferred to the other candidates in proportion to the next preferences marked for them - Advantages: gives voters opportunity to convey reveal preferences, voters not constrained by party lines, voters control the way their votes are used, opportunity to express opinion as to the direction their party should take, ensures that voters can vote sincerely - Criticisms: Weakens internal unity of parties, can be only realistically used in countries with small constituencies, facilitates the election of independent candidates Why electoral systems matter: - Pr vs plurality systems Proportionality: - Greater under PR than plurality systems - Especially those with large district magnitude - Threshold may create disproportionality The number of parties: - Duverger: - Single member plurality system favours a two party system, double ballot majority tends to produce multipartism with alliances, and PR leads to the formation of many independent parties - SMP associated with a two party system because of both mechanical and psychological effects - Mechanical: smaller parties with support spread across the country do not reap a proportional reward in seats for their share of the votes - Psychological: voters are aware of the mechanical effect: vote for significant parties, or candidate - Electoral systems: do play a major part, not a deterministic one, but in influencing the shape of party systems - Duvergers law: plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system and that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism". Coalition or single party government?: - Argument against PR: Difficulty of forming a government - Single party governments are much more likely under majoritarian electoral systems - Coalitions more common in PR Policy outputs -Voters' preferences are better represented in parliaments by PR systems - Electoral systems can have an impact on many aspects of public policy - Consensus democracy/PR: kinder and gentler when it comes to welfare spending, protection of the environment, etc. and better in macroeconomic performance and control of violence The backgrounds of parliamentarians: - PR facilitates the election of women because of the multi-member constituencies - In single member constituency: reluctant in selecting a representative of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority.

Introduction: - Executive is responsible to the legislature, and governments are not chosen by the people - People vote to choose a parliament - Political reality: elections are much more about choosing governments than they are about choosing a set of people to legislate - Real prize that is won or lost at parliamentary elections is a place in the government - Legislative coalitions needed to provide majority support for any government Parliamentary votes of confidence and no confidence: - If such a vote is carried, the government is deemed dismissed if it does not resign voluntarity - Constitutional convention that a government will in fact resign if defeated in a no confidence vote. - In many countries, failure of government's annual finance bill or budget, is the same as losing a vote of no confidence - Main form of legislative control over the executive is to throw the entire executive out on its ear. But not always need for such measures Investiture requirements: - In some countries: incoming government must win an explicit formal legislative investiture vote before it can take office - Important, as absence of this makes it easier to form minority governments - Sometimes majority for specific issues Formateurs: the role of the head of state: - Typical that the head of state charges constitutional authority to government. - Swearing in function, known as a formateur - In some countries, the initiative in government formation lies with the outgoing government The status quo and 'caretaker' governments: - Always a legally incumbent government in place - Once a government has been defeated or resigned, the incumbent gvt. remains in office to run the country as a care administration - Powers of caretaker governments depend on country. Some have full power, some have have contrained powers. Agreeing a joint programme of government: - Two concerns in government formation negotiations: 1. Who will hold the various cabinet positions 2. Joint policy programme for the government, particularly important for coalitions - Resolving policy differences. Must come to an agreement Choosing a set of cabinet ministers: - Choosing government involves choosing the senior politicians who will hold cabinet portfolios - Must be accepted to parliament - Coalitions:each party leader nominates ministers. They may also veto an occasional controversial nomination by another party leader - Ministers chosen for their loyalty to the party or their ability to represent varying strands of party opinion - Political skills considered over administrative - Mostly former MPs, though in some countries this does not hold Government formation: - The typical European election does not definitively settle the matter of who forms the government - When government formations immediately followed an election, the incumbent cabinet and prime minister went back into office in fully one third of cases, and when government formation was taking place without election, incumbent prime minister and parties almost never returned to office - Election results: can lead to predictable changes of coalition government - Final say in government formation lies with elected politicians, not voters Getting into office: - Fame and status accompanied by the title - Interest in influencing public policy Office seeking politicians and 'minimal winning' governments: - Assumption: politicians only want the extrinsic benefits of being in office. - Minimal winning cabinets carry no passangers, they include only parties whose seats are essential to maintain the government's parliamentary majority - Exclusion of parties whose votes have no significance for parliamentary majority - Opposite: oversized or surplus majority government Policy-oriented politicians and ideology compact governments: - Another assumption: if politicians only want intrinsic benefits (i.e: change public policy), then minimal connected winning cabinets: comprising parties that are adjacent to each other in policy terms and cannot lose a party off either 'end' without losing their majority Minority governments: - Minority governments have majority opposition in parliament - Strøm: minority governments should be seen as a normal and democratic outcome - Can stay in power if opposition is divided Surplus majority governments: - Grand coalitions: common unifying goal: surplus majority - Determined by constitution - Carrying passengers in cabinet coalitions - Establishing an oversized government: allows for defections. Types of government in modern Europe: - Minimal winning coalition and surplus majority coalition most common in Europe

What are parties, and what are they for? - Description: - Represent socially or culturally significant interests at the same time as aggregating their sometimes contradictory preferences - Recruiting, selecting, socialising and providing material and ideological support to candidates and elected politicians who will do the representing, often at both national and sub-national level - Structuring an array of choices available to voters at parliamentary and local elections, which by their very presence, they render competitive - Facilitate the formation of governments that produce coordinated and coherent policy responses to perceived and real problems - Mediating between millions of citizens and a state that otherwise might act exclusively in the interest of those it employs and those whose economic clout could give them a disproportionate say in its direction - However, in characteristics above, the less formal functions aren't covered, such as 'jobs for the boys' - Political parties: organisations that, for the most part, recruit candidates to contest elections in the hope that they can participate in government, or at leash push it in the direction of its own ideas that reflect socio-economic interests and/or moral values of those who support them Organisation: - May impact ideology, flexibility and dynamics of the party - Ideology may also impact organisation - Accounts of modern party: in the hands of leaders determined not to allow their more zealous supporters to scupper their electoral chances by remaining true to whatever cause the party was set up to promote or defend - Organise through common sense: logical hierarchy - Presidentialisation of parties: the parties play little more than na supporting role to the celebrity politicians who are their leaders - However, we're way off from that situation, parties existed for a long time, can replace the 'face' quickly - Green parties also show the opposite: They're open parties, allow for discussion with members - Ideology: guide to understanding the distribution of power within different parties - Also parliamentary system and candidate selection - Practices of party The evolution of political party organisation: - Cadre parties: controlled by an elite small group consisting of parliamentarians and local notables, who rallied members who were expected to contribute funds and campaign - Mass parties: branch structure in which members could hope to contribute to policy - Catch-all-parties: attempt to catch the 'floating voter' and interest group backing. Focus on pragmatism rather than ideology - Cartel parties: balance of power that might be captured by activist members - Anti-system: reaction to the collusive consensus Party systems and party families: - Most political scientists employ a dual approach to classifying party systems (Giovanni Sartori) - Equal weight to the degree of 'fragmentation' and the ideological distance between them ('polarisation') - Fragmentation: number of parties present in the system - Polarisation: ideological difference between them - Can be plotted on graph - Comparing countries - UK: few parties and little distance between parties (moderate two-partyism') - Germany, Sweden, Poland Spain: difference between parties little, but more of them (moderate multipartyism) - France, Netherlands, Italy: lots of parties and big difference between them (polarised multipartyism) - Another method of classifying party systems (Peter Mair) - Most systems fall into moderate multipartyism - Measure of competition for government - Can be open or closed - Closed: 1. alternation in governments tends to be that all the parties in office lose power after an election 2. Combinations of parties that form governments are familiar rather than innovative 3. Narrow range of mainstream parties tend to govern - Open: - More opaque, fluid, innovative, inclusive and less predictable - In closed system, competition will be more 'centriperal' (more in the centre) than 'centrifugal' (toward the extreme) - More of a supplement rather than replace the Sartori style schema - How did party systems come to be? Political scientists argue that they are rooted in social conflicts which they call cleavages - Cleavages: splits or divisions in a society that give rise to conflicts that may well be expressed in political form, often via the formation of opposing parties representing people on either side of the split - Theses: they helped structure or even freeze Europe's party system - Some have developed since, and some have declined or halted - Extent of relevance of a cleavage helped to determine which parties were present, as well as which were stronger or weaker - Extent to which existing parties were able to adapt in order to mobilise on that cleavage -Not all countries will have been affected by all cleavages, so not all party groups present - Evolution of cleavages: - 1800: Land-industry, owner-worker - 1900: Urban-rural, centre-periphery, church-state, revolution-gradualism, democracy-totalitarianism - 1950: materialism-postmaterialism, multiculturalism-homogeneity - With these cleavages, came different groups: - 1800 Libs, cons, socialists/social-democrats - 1900: Agrarian, regionalists, christian democrats, communists, fascists - 1950: Greens, far right - Party competition now into two dimensions, left-right and authoritarian-libertarian: emergence of GALTAN - GALTAN: Green/Alternative/Libertarian and Traditionalism/Authority/Nationalism - Thus, relationship between cleavages and parties can be used to predict the number of parties in a system - Lijphart formula: minimum number of parties = number of issue dimensions + 1 - However, does not always hold exactly. One must ignore the very small parties - Should political scientists group parties together? - Generalisations are useful, but memberships of the family does not always involve direct lineage - Looking at individual families: Socialist and social democratic parties: - Emerged from owner-worker cleavage - Agitation of not merely political rights but economy and society - Allied with trade union - State ownership of key industries and utilities, progressive taxation Conservative parties: - defence of the socio-economic privileges of the traditional mainly landed, hierarchy against the rising liberal middle class - Universal suffrage - State intervention should be limited largely to policing law and order and providing for the defence of the realm - Most successful in countries that has two main parties and in countries with absence of a traditionally more centrist Christian democracy Christian democratic parties: - Christian democratic parties were markedly more positive about state and trade union involvement than some of their conservative counterparts - Since WW2, catch all parties, less focus on religion - More neoliberal economic policies Liberal parties: - Commerce and professions - legal, property, religious, and political rights of the individual - Split two ways: - Neo liberalism: prioritises a commitment to the free market and opposition to state interference in the economy as well as matters of morality - Social liberalism: sympathetic toward government intervention in the economy and welfare policy Green parties: - Against unsustainability and exploitative nature of growth oriented economic development - Post materialist: quality of life rather than standard of living - Anti militarism and anti discrimination - Better ties with developing world - Social justice and liberal tolerance of alternative life styles - Not so popular in environment conscious parties - Virtually non existent in central and Eastern Europe Far-right parties: - Nationalist, conservative and militaristic responses to communist revolution in Russia and economic difficulties - Populism, low tax and low interference, and conservative social values - Eurosceptic Communist and Left Parties - dissatisfaction with gradualism of social democracy - Can be achieved rapidly through revolution - Stress 'new politics', anti discriminations, aid to the developing world, environmental awareness, antimilitarism Regional and ethnic parties: - Independence, important role in sub national and sometimes national coalition governments - Numerous in Spain Agrarian and Centre parties - generous welfare, agricultural support and environmental conservation - Small producers don't want to be sold to multinationals and the European union The bases of party systems - social and institutional; luck and skill: - Though historical cleavages structure present day party systems, doesn't mean parties don't develop away from their original intentions - Can become flexible - Strength of parties not determined by social conflicts, but also by man made constitutional arrangements, 'institutionalists' - Electoral system - Plurality system may make it easier for regionalist parties - Constituency size also affects this - Party systems are the product of both institutional arrangements and social forces - How institutionalised the system is may also affects party systems - Institutionalised: how predictable, stable and legitimate the party system is Party system change?: - Europanisation of party systems from west to east and north to south might be a two way process - Fragmentation caused by two things: 1. Electoral volatility: when voters switch their votes between parties from one election to another 2. Dealignment: the way in which people's political preferences seem to be becoming less related to their location on one or other side of certain key cleavages - Electoral volatility in less establishied democracies (Eastern Europe) - Switching of votes: more parties - Depends on factors such as how long the country has been democratic - Green, far right and regionalist parties on way to becoming old parties. Not flash parties at all. - Party systems thawing? Could be: - Increase in structural change: migration, occupation and family patterns, and changes in institution - Overstating the changes of party systems - Not at a pace where we should be worrying about a dissolution of party systems Are parties in decline?: YES: Losing members, less party identity - Fewer people bothered to vote - Can't survive without state subsidies - People getting more involved with pressure groups than parties NO: never had as many members as one may think, loss of party is not bad things - turnout for elections can still increase - state funding of parties varies considerably - Pressure groups push only their point of view on others, while parties try to make things more balanced The Europeanisation of parties and party systems?: - EU provides parties to persuade and learn from other parties, but also exposes party to issues of ideology and organisation - Representatives of national parties elected to the European Parliament need to work together, which they do by forming party groups - Transnational activity could lead to coordinated campaigning at EP elections - Regionalisation - Yet, political cycles in EU countries not yet synchronised - Though not completely unaffected by European integration - Parties not bandwagoners, they can also build them

Introduction: - Forming coalitions with right wing parties not a sure way to stem their success - Populism: Use of appeals to the people or claim to represent general interests versus the interests of a specific group (opportunism). Also use of us versus them, juxtaposing identity and common interests. Also use negativity in political communication - Populism, not political ideology, a style of politics that is intricately related to particular political ideologies Right-wing populism in Europe: - FN in France, anti-Semetic elements - Support from middle classes, small businessmen and farmers - Under Marine, de-demonization of the party - Less antisemitism, more anti-immigrant, islamophobic position - Protection of the French people against globalisation - Anti EU - FPÖ in Austria, programmatic flexibility - Strong under Haider, appeal to working class, anti-immigrat, anti-Muslim - Strong under Strache too - PiS in Poland - Protection of Polish people and catholicism - Fidesz in Hungary - illiberal authoritarianism - New constitution and restricted freedom of the media - Flexible - Interventionist economic policies - anti EU and immigrant - UKIP in the UK, exit of the EU - AfD in Germany, anti-immigration, anti-islam, anti-media - Euro-skepticism Shared in common: - Issues: political, economic and cultural, such as immigration - Support: middle class, small business - working class now also being mobilised - More fluid in Eastern Europe as less established party systems - Strategies: stark generalisations, strict distinctions, emotional appeals and exaggerations, foster fear and anger, free media attention

Introduction: - Parties in Europe matter, 'unthinkable in terms of the parties' What do parties do? - Present in and at the core of politics in all European countries - Crucial functions: 1. Structure the political world 2. Recruit and socialise the political elite 3. Linkage between rulers and ruled between civil society and the state 4. Aggregate interests, unlike interest groups Basic party organisation: - Basic organisational elements are very similar - Members of parties belong to a local unit - Branches or units send candidates to annual conference, which elect most members of the party's national executive, which runs the party organisation between conferences - Other main element in the party is the parliamentary party or caucus comprising the party's elected deputies - Some parties: fractionalised, number of clearly defined groups, jostle for power and position - Competition within the party: over purity of ideology Who becomes a party member?: - To become member: annual fee and pledge - Expected to attend regular local branch meetings - Party members: only a minority of party supporters as a whole - Most parties claim to have more members than they really have - Number of delegates sent to annual conference can depend on how many members it has, so the larger it claims to be, the more delegates it can send - Only a small fraction of those who vote or a party are committed to joining it - And only a minority of this minority can be considered active - Bolstering membership: social clubs? - Membership figures: declining across western Europe, except Greece and Spain - Why? - Three main motives for joining or leaving: 1. Material: desire to gain some tangible reward 2. Solidary: desire for social contact and a sense of comradeship in a common enterprise 3. Purposive: desire to advance certain policy goals - In Eastern Europe, also low membership: distrust from communist times - Weak links with civil society - Parties can be short-lived, come and go rapidly - Party members not entirely socially representative of party voters: women and young people underrepresented, members usually retired - Parties have become less firmly implanted in society than previously The activities of party members: - Mostly active at election time, important role in campaigning at the grassroots level - Putting up posters, party stalls, handing leaflets - Otherwise, not that active: some attend branch meetings regularly to discuss ways of expanding the organisation at the local level, or to decide their stance on issues due to arise at the next annual conference - Observations: people only excited when talking about who will become the next constituency organisation chairperson - Previously, belonging to parties was a way of life - Own newspaper, branch offices over Germany were centres of social activity, ran health service - Golden age of mass and active party membership is yet another golden age that perhaps never really existed - Though, members not redundant: important in giving these parties a character Power within parties: - Internal affairs of parties: continuous process of accommodation and mutual adjustment - Party remains together because a balance of power is respected and no one element tries to achieve complete control - Elements of party organisation, leader, MPs, rank and file members and so on, may jostle for position, but rarely open warfare as most have same political outlook - Areas of struggle within the party: - Party manifesto and programme, election of party leader and selection of the parliamentary candidates, sources of party finance The changing shape of European parties: - From cadre parties to cartel parties The future of European parties: - Whether it'll survive or not: party in the electorate: parties' implantation in civil society - Party in public office: those working as representatives - Party in central office: headquarters and central slogans - Outlook, parties will continue to exist and so will their members - Vital to organs of representation in European politics

The Social Bases of Party Support: - Why study elections: How political attitudes influence behaviour - Window into the minds of the citizens - Reflects the changing patterns of citizen politics - Most make decisions during campaign and issues of the day - Policy-centered debates or reliance on habitual loyalties? Economic issues or cultural issues? The Social Group Model of Voting: - Social attachments as important influences on voting choice - They represent the distinct social interests - Partisanship studies: class, religion, residence - Class and religion: indicates values and political beliefs - Social characteristics: reflect political cues to which a voter is exposed - Social groups: orient voters to political issues and providing information about politics - These act as shortcuts to political decisions Social Class and the Vote: - Class politics: Old politics: conflict between the haves and the have nots - Issues they face in reaching economic and material goals - Though, class conflicts still relevant, the 1 percent versus the 99 percent - Social class: in terms of occupation - Classified based on their relationship to means of production, such as bourgeoisie and proletariat - However, now there's new middle class and white-collar workers too - New middle class: important addition, lacks a clear position in traditional dichotomy, focused on New Politics issues - Each of these social classes have voting preferences - Nowadays, the new middle class is now the largest group of voters and more important, has ambiguous partisan preferences - Alford index of class voting, in decline due to less class voting - New frameworks for class voting, only of modest value Why Is Class Voting Decreasing?: - Butler and Stokes: group-based voting as a two-step process: voters linked to a social group, and then the group is linked to a political party - Narrowing in the life conditions of social classes can also weaken the connection between individuals and their respective classes - Embourgeoisement and proletarianization of both working and middle class - Social and occupational mobility may also weaken the link between individuals and traditional social classes - Another explanation is changing relationship between class groups and the political parties - Why it's important: signals a change in the nature of political conflict, signals a change of how voters reach decisions, social modernisation implies that the long term decline in class voting should continue Religion and the Vote: - Religious identity shapes values and political positions - Religious cleavage, political issues often linked to religious values (abortion, homosexual rights, and moral standards) - Varied composition of religions in countries: hard to study - Catholics, generally support right - Protestants, generally support left - Varies per country - Jewish Americans: democrats - Influence of religiosity and church attendance - Austria most influenced by church attendance and voting - Cleavages vary around Europe - Catholic nations of Europe, less church attendance - Fundamentalism: increase of religious cues - Religious cleavages have decreased - Denominational differences may have narrowed slightly in some of these cases, but has not decreased as much as class voting Other Social Group Differences: - Regional interests can shape party choice - Urban/rural residence often reflects different life conditions, albeit this factor is not as influential - Gender differences, women supporting the Left - Race and ethnicity as possible cleavages - Hispanics and Afro-American vote mostly democratic - Sociological factors: weak and declining influence on voting choice New Politics and the Vote: - Post material cleavage may produce a new partisan alignment - Environmental protection, gender equality, multiculturalism - Attracts the young, new middle class, better educated, nonreligious - Materialists prefer the right, and postmaterialists the left - However, data not as available as other social characteristics and vote - Growing impact on voting choice - However, this doesn't mean that more people will vote left - Old politics cleavages will remain as major influence on voting for some time The Transformation of Social Cleavages: - Changes in social conditions: Social changes have occurred in all advanced industrial democracies - Previously, working and middle class cleavage was more important - Social modernisation weakened class alignments - Secularisation is decreasing the influence of religion on voting behaviour - Partisan realignment, shift in the group basis of party coalitions - Post material values cannot be identified the same way that class, religion or region can - Now defined by identities with fixed social groups to issue/value cleavages that are based on communities of like minded people - Issue group cleavages rather than social group cleavages

Partisanship and Voting: - Opinions and attitudes of voters as pivotal factors in their voting choices - Opinions and attitudes of voters as pivotal factors in their voting choices A Sociopsychological Model of Voting: - Development of voting models to include psychological factors, such as issues and attitudes as influences on voting choice - Explains the limits of sociological group based approach - Model combining both sociological and psychological influences - Funnel of causality - At the wide mouth of the funnel, socioeconomic conditions that generate the basic conflicts of interests within society: economic structure, social divisions, regional alignments (structure party system) - These then influence group loyalties and basic value orientations, attitudes that influence political behaviour - Then group identities and values shape the political attitudes (party attachment, issue opinions and candidate images) - Also events of the campaign, media reports, campaign activity, etc. influence issue opinions and candidate images - Very useful model, factors on the left of the figure are distant from the voting decision, and the factors on the right are more proximate - Wide end of the funnel, broad social conditions, political factors towards the voting decision - Factors on left are conditions of society, factors on right are considerations made by the individual voter - Model successfully predicts voting choices - Predicts how we think about elections and how researchers analyse the voting process Partisan Attitudes: - Loyalties strongly influenced many of the specific political beliefs and behaviours of the citizenry - Party identification/partisanship - Not as common in Europe, though more independents in the uS The Learning of Partisanship: - Children learn party loyalty before they understand what the party labels stand for - Parents play a central role in socialisation of these values - Exposed to political cues - More party identity as you get older - PID most stable political attitudes across nations - Central element in an individual's belief system and a basis of political identity - Formed early in life and may condition later life learning The Impact of Partisanship: - Parties make politics used friendly - Party label: information shortcut - Party ties mobilise people to become politically active, encourages them to become active in political process to support his/her side - Party identification: affects voting choices: means that a voter has a predisposition to support his or her preferred party - Also close relationship between PID and voting in parliamentary elections - Partisanship is the ultimate heuristic as: 1. Creates basis of political identity 2. Provides cues for evaluating political events, candidates, and issues 3. Mobilises participation in campaigns and election turnout 4. Provides cues on voting preferences 5. Stabilises voting patterns for the individual and the party system Partisan Dealignment: - Party seems to be eroding - Deeper party loyaties are weakening - Negativity toward parties as political institutions - Public confidence in political parties lower - Public isn't developing party attachments The Consequences of Dealignment: - Decreased partisan-centered voting - Increased number of parties competing in parliamentary elections - Rise in split-ticket voting - Declining turnout - Change in how the public reaches its voting choices Causes of Dealignment: - Poor performance of parties - Poor performance: greater dealignment, though not that much - People's expectations about parties have changed - Declining function of parties as institutions: less support for them - Party leaders has some loss of control over some processes of the party - Changes in mass media: provide the information that parties used to provide Cognitive Mobilization and Apartisans: - Cognitive Mobilization thesis: accepts the importance of partisanship, but because the public's cognitive sophistication is growing, more people can deal with the complexities of politics without reliance on cues of heuristics - Focus on postmaterial values, moving away from parties - Growth of independents: concentrated among a distinct group of citizens: young, educated and adherents of postmaterial values - Some people orient themselves to politics based on their partisan attachments, some through cognitive mobilisation - Orient themselves to politics on their own - Thus: four types of citizens - Apolitical independents: neither attached to political party nor cognitively mobilised - Ritual partisans: mobilised primarily by parties - Cognitive partisans: mobilised by parties and cognitively - Apartisans: new independents, high levels of political involvement and sophistication, though they remain unattached to any political party - Cognitive mobilisation: transforming the characteristics of partisans

The Consensus Model of Democracy - Majoritarian interpretation of democracy: Government by the majority of people - Majorities should govern and minorities should oppose - Opposed by the consensus model of democracy - Lewis: All those affected by a decision should have the chance to participate in making that decision either directly or through chosen representatives -Winning parties may make all the governmental decisions and losers may criticise but not govern, the two meanings are incompatible - Majoritarians respond: Majorities and minorities can alternate in government - And: homogenous society: major parties are usually not very far apart in their policy outlooks because they stay close to the political centre - Government for the people rather than by the people - In less homogeneous societies: this would be undemocratic - In deeply divided societies, majority rule: majority dictatorship - Consensus model, explained in terms of ten elements in sharp contrast to majoritarian system - Consensus: shares, disperses, and restrains power in a variety of ways 1. Executive power-sharing in broad coalition cabinets: - Westminster: executive power in one party cabinets - Consensus: all or most of the important parties share executive power 2. Executive-legislative balance of power: - Consensus: separation of powers, more balanced cabinet-parliament relationship, give and take - Westminister: Dominant cabinet, dependent on the confidence of the legislature, executive dominates legislature 3. Multiparty system: - Consensus: More parties, due to plural societies, divided along several lines of cleavage (religion, class and language) - Westminster: Dual party system 4. Proportional representation: - Consensus: present in consensus, explains multiparty systems - Divide the parliamentary seats among the parties in proportion to the votes received - Westminster: overrepresents large parties, underrepresents small parties, majoritarian and disproportional electoral system 5. Interest group corporatism: - Consensus: liberal corporatism, tripartile concertation, few and large interest groups, peak associations - Westminster: pluralist 6. Federal and decentralised government: - Consensus: central government + regional governments = decentralisation - Federal - Westminster: Centralised and unitary government 7. Strong bicameralism: - Consensus: bicameralism: representation of minority, upper house elected on a different basis than the lower house, and has real power - Strong bicameralism - Westminster: Unicameralism 8. Constitutional rigidity: - Consensus: Rigid and difficult to amend - Westminster: Flexible, easily amended 9. Judicial review: - Consensus: Constitutional court - Westminster: Parliamentary sovereignty 10. Central bank: - Consensus: Independent of executive - Westminster: Dependent on executive

Where Is the Power?: - Parliamentary government - Executive powers linked to legislative powers - Executive elected by legislature - Leader of the party likely to serve as country's next executive/Prime Minister - Majoritarian - At least a majority of members of the lower house must at all times support the government - Two party system, though emergence of Liberal Democratic Party - If majority of MPs decide they no longer want current government to continue in office: remove government by a vote of no confidence or defeating a major government legislative proposal - Remaining PM requires continual support of Parliament - Government decisions must be made collectively and be supported by the entire cabinet - Collective responsibility - Allows executive to govern - If executive cannot command the acquiescence of the legislature it will cease to be the executive British Parliamentary Government: - Role of the opposition: oppose the government, present constructive alternatives - Exception of this: wars - Parliamentary government: party government - Parliament: institution in itself, but also arena where political parties clash - British parliamentary government: sovereign - No legal limitations on the powers of Parliament, and no means by which a citizen can challenge an act of Parliament as unconstitutional - Though, limitations on the discretion of Parliament through membership of EU - Its actions are law The Monarch: - The UK is constitutional monarchy, in which powers of the monarch are constrained by both law and convention - Royal assent is needed for legislation to become law - If there is no clear winner of who becomes PM, monarch may be able to choose one - Empowered to dissolve parliament if perhaps the government did not resign and call for elections after a vote of no confidence or if it lost on a major issue, though they could also refuse to do so - Must be unifying force when everything else in political system is centrifugal, divisive and adversarial - Monarch representative of the nation as a whole The Prime Minister: - The prime minister is head of the government of the day and its chief executive office - Role of prime minister becoming presidential: due to parliamentary campaigns have become directed toward electing a particular prime minister rather than a party (increased through Thatcher), staffing and organisation of the office (special assistants in departments), appointment of special advisors - Prime minister is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. Party selects potential prime minister - Prime minster is political leader within the House of Commons - Expected to win verbal jousts and lead parliamentary debates - Substantial powers: relationships between the monarch and Parliament are channeled through the Prime Minister - PM serves as chief political adviser to the monarch, especially on major issues such as the dissolution of parliament. Meet on a weekly basis. - While in office: considerable personal power over policy and the activities of the cabinet. In position to enforce his or her views over nominal equals - Leader of opposition also able to wield influence and power, must propose alternatives to government programs Cabinet: - Cabinet composed of the individuals who meet with the prime minster as a collectivity called the cabinet and who make collective policy decisions - Government: is more encompassing, including all ministers regardless of their seniority or degree of responsibility - Cabinet technically a committee of the government elected by prime minister. It is responsible to parliament, and cabinet members generally rise and fall as a unit - Distinction between secretaries of state and ministers is rather vague: Each tends to head a dept. of Government - Junior ministers are attached to a dept. to provide political and policy assistance in the management of the dept. - Minister: remains a member of the legislature and an active representative of a constituency and must fulfil various positions and responsibilities simultaneously, i.e: policies, cabinet meetings, must appear in Parliament, serve their constituents in the districts from which they were elected - Cabinet supported by Cabinet office Parliament: - Serious questions arisen about the real effective powers of Parliament - As executive grows, parliament less capable of exercising control over policies Members of Parliament: - Average MP represents 90,000 people - Few advantages - Some have sponsoring organisations - Corruption -> limiting of sponsors Organisation: - Both the house of Commons and the House of lords are involved in making policy, but Commons is crucial to forming govts. and setting public budget - House of lords is composed of the lords spiritual and the lords temporal - Lords temporal comprise hereditary and life peers - Lords spiritual: represents Church of England - HoL may not relay money bills longer than one month - Any legislation passed by the HoC in two successive sessions of Parliament goes into effect without approval from HoL - HoC: evolved over centuries and still reflects medieval roots - Arranged as two opposing ranks of benches - Informal debate, heckling - Partisan body and national institutions: Ideas of cabinet government and collective responsibility are closely allied with ideas of party government - MPs sometimes allowed to vote against party lines if interests go against their constituencies - Speaker of the House, impartial figure dressed in the style of the eighteenth century - Elected from the membership of the Commons for being someone who can be elected unanimously rather than produced by a partisan confrontation - May remain in office as long as he or she wishes, seat rarely contested. Votes only in cases of ties, though he traditionally votes to keep status quo - Decides which amendments to legislation will be debated - Smaller commissions below HoC, some special committees regarding legislation affecting i.e: Scotland - Other committees for monitoring and oversight - Parliament threatened as institution as it has had difficulty maintaining independent powers in the face of the growing powers of PM and cabinet. Most important weapons are in hands of the executive Local Government: - Not independent set of institutions with its own constitutional base of authority such as that found for states or provinces in a federal system - Local government: creation and the creature of the central government - Differs through Scotland, England and Wales - Large number of voters per councillor: loss of local democracy Quasi-Governmental Sector: - Semi-private semi-public enterprises such as the NHS, some independence from government

Who Has the Power?: Political parties: - Catchall parties - Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats The Party and Electoral Systems - Two and one half party system - Increasing citizens per seat Voting and Elections: - Elections for House of Commons: national - Parties control selection of candidates Partisan Choice by Voters: - Determined by Social class, patterns of residence, demography, issues

- 24 June 2016 - 51.9% leave - British pound dropped to new 31 year low - David Cameron resigned - Not surprising: UK most Eurosceptic electorate, Conservatives opposed to EU, EU referendums unpredictable, Anti-establishment (fears of immigration) - Unique event - Referendum came about as the culmination of decades of internal division in the British Conservative party - To avoid voters to move to UKIP, conservatives pledged to hold a referendum - Government failed to win over voters with new settlement for Britain in the EU, though it was confident it could win the referendum - Boris Johnson: Out (cons.) - David Cameron: In (cons.) - Jeremy Corbyn: In (Labour) - Most of the campaign: remain - Though: Fluctuation in the last month of the campaign, where polls indicated Leave majority - Economy vs Immigration - In: economic stability - Out: authority, control, immigration - Beginning of the campaign: Economy - Towards the end of campaign: Immigration - Lack of trust on David Cameron - Value and belief approach: overall feelings towards EU - Second-order theory approach: show dissatisfaction towards government - Three main approaches to explaining variation in support for and opposition to European integration: 'utilitarian', 'identity', 'cue-taking' - Utilitarian: Since EU trade liberalisation favours citizens with higher levels of human capital and income, such individuals will be more supportive of the EU - Winners: more supportive - Left behind: less supportive - Identity also explains vote: territorial identity expect to vote out but multiple identities expected to vote in. - Citizens rely on 'cues' and proxis when forming opinions about the EU - Four set of factors shapes vote choices: socioeconomic factors, geographical identities, feelings about the domestic political establishment, and policy attitudes. - Socioeconomic factors: the better educated, young, and well-off are less likely to vote Leave compared to those 'left behind'. Big impact on education as indicator for vote - Geographical identities: European identity powerful predictor of Remain vote. British identity: opposite - Feelings about the domestic political establishment: Labour party voters more in favour of Remain, UKIP most likely to be Brexiteers, Scottish National Party more likely to remain - Policy attitudes: Issues mobilised in the campaign, such as economy and immigration, are highly correlated with vote choice. Those who felt immigration should be lowered voted Leave - Calls of referendums by populist Eurosceptic parties in countries post Brexit vote - In most countries: Support for the EU - Though, some divides in certain parties

Policymaking Institutions: - At national level: Bundestag (federal parliament), lower house of parliament (Bundesrat) and executive (federal government - chancellor and cabinet) - 16 states constitute republic, they all have direct influence on national policy making through the Bundesrat. - Federal Constitutional Court: judicial review (important actor in policy process) - President: ceremonial head, above partisan political struggle - Some of German power controlled through EU institutions, i.e: European Court of Justice and European central bank The Federal Parliament (Bundestag): - Federal Parliament - Centre of policymaking - Legislative assembly - Elected every four years - Directly elected by the people Responsibilities: Legislation, election and control of gvt., supervision of bureaucracy and military, selection of judges of F.C. Court - Under Bismark, little power - Powers expanded under the Weimar republic (chancellor and cabinet directly responsible to it) - After WW2, parliament status and control grown - Responsibility for electing and controlling the government - Once government is elected, the government selects the federal chancellor - Controlled by: ability to request appearance of any cabinet or state official and similar to British style 'Question Hour' - Fraktionen - Seats distributed proportionally according to party strength - Most bills reported out in order to be amended or revised - When government discovers a bill is in trouble, bill is usually withdrawn for further study before a vote The Federal Council (Bundesrat): - Federal council - Interests of the states in the national policymaking process - 69 members drawn from sixteen states - Each state entitled to three to six members - 1969, Bundesrat no longer a ''watchdog'' over Bundestag - As a result: ''divided government'' (majority in Bundestag but not in Bundesrat) - I.e: 1969 to 1982 CDU/CSU union blocked most of proposals involving divorce, abortion, etc - 1991 onwards, SPD now became opposition party- progress on policies - But after 1999, Government had divided once more - State leaders can quickly go against party if it affects their region - Bundesrat veto can be overridden by majority two-thirds in Bundestag The Chancellor and the Cabinet - Chief executive of the Federal Republic is the chancellor - Less powerful than the US president, yet a chancellor has more authority and is more difficult to remove than a PM in British model. - President was previously powerful, but Basic Law framers sought to avoid a repetition of this problem by concentrating executive authority in the chancellor - Power of the chancellor: constitution, party system and precedents established by the first chancellor - Chancellor responsible for determining the main guidelines of the government's policies, so they're above ministers - Qualifications of members play role in selection - Constructive vote of no confidence: allows a parliament to withdraw confidence from a head of government only if there is a positive majority for a prospective successor. Vote of confidence: enables chancellors to strengthen their position by stabilising the governing majority. If he/she loses though, new elections can be triggered/resignation is possible 'Chancellor Democracy' - Term given to bureaucracy Konrad Adenauer (first chancellor) introduced to his government. - Parliamentary system with a strong, quasi-presidential executive. From Adenauer to Kiesinger - Adenauer chancellorship: economic miracle, integration of refugees, membership in the European Community, alliance with the US - Use powers to his fullest extent: He led. Little consultation. - Showed Germans that liberal republic could be efficient - Replaced by Erhard after his terms; he was dropped after Federal Republic suffered economic recession, replaced by Kiesinger - Kiesinger: Grand Coalition government with the SPD. Failed to get enough votes, passed from the national scene The First Social Democratic Chancellors: Brandt and Schmidt - Willy Brandt: new foreign policy (reconciliation with Germany's eastern neighbours, Ostpolitik). Treaties with Soviet Union and other Communist states - Began Détente - Image that Germany had overcome totalitarianism - Schmidt: economist - Came in time of Arab oil embarge of 1973, but he managed to control inflation and unemployment. Continued Ostpolitik on a lower scale. - Failed to appease left aspects of his own party - Unable to avoid worldwide recession of second oil price shock in 1979 - Replaced by Kohl in 1982 after losing majority Helmut Kohl - Intervention of East German elections in 1990 - Success of Alliance for Germany - Five step plan of integration for East Germany - December 1990 election in all of Germany, first free vote in all of Germany since 1932 - Liked more by Easterners: promise of economic prosperity - Four straight elections won - higher taxes in an attempt to improve East, recession in economy: lost majority in 1997 Gerard Schröder - First Chancellor of the 'Berlin Republic' - 1998-2005 - Incumbent government replaced - SPD and Green party coalition - Tax reform in 2000 - Couldn't help unemployment growth, by 2005 1 million unemployed - Credited for taking independent stance towards USA Angela Merkel: Chancellor for 'Hard Times'? - CDU/CSU coalition with SPD would only be possible with their own chancellor as head. - Merkel prevailed - Promised cuts in social programs, tax subsidies, increase value added tax -Economic recovery, reduce debt - Had to mediate to appease coalition - Job creation, health care reform and stability of European monetary system moved up on her agenda as her ratings dropped Formal Policymaking Procedures - Most legislation drafted in the ministries of the national gvt and submitted to the parliament for action - State governments and both houses of parliament can also submit legislative proposals - administrative regulations and legal ordinances do not require parliament consent, but if they affect states, they must be approved by the Bundesrat -Before a bill is submitted to parliament, is is approved by cabinet (government), then passed to Bundesrat, and the Bundestag considers it as well - After approval by Bundestag, the bill goes back to Bundesrat for a second reading The Judiciary (Germany) - Local, regional and state courts - Court systems specialising in labour, administration, tax, etc - German legal codes - The judge only administers and applies the codes, fitting the cases - Judge is neutral administrator of the codes - Inquisitorial system - Conventional/conservative values Justice in East Germany - After unification, many East German judges dismissed - Different conventions The Federal Constitutional Court - Independent of any justice ministry - Decisions on controversial political cases - Criticised for becoming too political