WORKSHOP ON CHANGES AND CHALLENGES IN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES

Transcription

1 Department of Social and Political Sciences WORKSHOP ON CHANGES AND CHALLENGES IN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES An assessment of the health of parliamentary democracy and its two most crucial institutions - political parties and elected legislatures To take place 3-4 May 2012 at the Badia (10 Credits) Nina Liljeqvist & Caterina Froio Registration with Päivi Kontinen With special thanks to: Prof. Adrienne Héritier and Prof. Mark Franklin Päivi Kontinen and Gabriella Unger For more information: Nina Liljeqvist: Nina.Liljeqvist@EUI.eu Caterina Froio: Caterina.Froio@EUI.eu 1

2 WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION Parliamentary democracy is the most common regime type in the contemporary political world. However, the assumed crisis of parliamentary democracy is as old as the regime type itself and new challenges to majoritarian models of democracy have recently surfaced. In a nutshell, the challenges parliamentary democracies are facing are mainly linked to the quality of governance, which depends on effective parliamentary oversight and strong political parties. This scenario puzzles scholars about the possibility of further improvements or if this form of government is the end of history of political representation (Fukuyama 1992). In this context, the five Nordic states (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) present a stimulating region that has been left relatively unexplored since they have traditionally been considered strongholds of parliamentary democracy. In recent years, however, critics have suggested that even in the Nordic countries, new challenges such as weakened popular attachment, the advent of cartel parties, the judicialization of politics, and European integration have threatened the institutions of parliamentary democracy in the Nordic region. In The Madisonian Turn - Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe (2011), edited by Torbjörn Bergman, Umeå University, and Kaare Strøm, University of California, San Diego, these claims and their implications are examined. The authors find that the Nordics have moved away from their previous resemblance to a Westminster model toward a form of parliamentary democracy with more separation- of- powers - a Madisonian model. Although far from uniform, these features are evident both in vertical power relations (e.g., relations with the European Union) and horizontal ones (e.g., increasingly independent courts and central banks). The consequences of these process change in the different countries, but the observed changes are nevertheless symptomatic for a movement away from a majoritarian model of democracy towards more constitutional types. Using Bergman and Strøm s study as a point of departure, we propose a workshop that deals with the various changes and challenges in parliamentary democracy and how these developments and responses vary in contemporary Western democracies. By bringing together leading researchers in this field of research, with different perspectives and methodologies, we aim at offering an assessment of the current state, and research, of majoritarian models of democracy. ******** The theme of this workshop is part of a field of research which was previously supervised by Peter Mair here at the EUI. The workshop offers former supervisees of Peter Mair, working in this field, an opportunity to get academic exchange from leading scholars around the world. We would like to thank all speakers who have accepted our invitation. NB: This workshop is open to all EUI researchers. 2

3 FORMAT This workshop is a two- day event. Each day will consist of approximately six hours and sessions will take place in the morning and in the afternoon. In the first session, Kaare Strøm will give a keynote on his latest work The Madisonian Turn. In the following sessions the other invited speakers will present their research linked to this topic in order to examine related themes and ultimately to assess the Madisonian Turn theory. Presentations are followed by a general discussion. The workshop concludes with a summary of the research presented over the course of the two days, which will open the floor for a final round- table discussion. The workshop will be held Thursday 3 to Friday 4 May 2012 in the Seminar Room 2 in the Badia. See exact schedule overleaf. Requirements for the obtainment of the 10 credits Active and informed participation is required. Students who wish to attend this workshop should beforehand register with Päivi Kontinen (Paivi.Kontinen@EUI.eu). CONFIRMED SPEAKERS Mark Franklin, European University Institute Emiliano Grossman, Institut d Etudes Politiques de Paris Adrienne Héritier, European University Institute Wolfgang Müller, University of Vienna Tapio Raunio, University of Tampere Kaare Strøm, University of California, San Diego For further details, please do not hesitate to contact us: Nina Liljeqvist: Nina.Liljeqvist@EUI.eu Caterina Froio: Caterina.Froio@EUI.eu 3

4 PROGRAMME DAY 1 Thursday 3 May 2012 Seminar room 2 09:00 09:15 Welcome and introductions 09:15-10:45 Session 1: The Madisonian Turn: The Transformation of Parliamentary Democracy in the Nordic Countries Presented by Kaare Strøm 10:45-11:00 11:00-12:30 Refreshment break Session 2: The Politics of Institutional Change: Parliamentary Rules in European Democracies Presented by Wolfgang Müller 12:30-13:00 Discussion sessions 1 and 2 13:00-14:00 14:00-15:30 Lunch at the Badia Session 3: The EU as an external Constraint on National Legislatures Presented by Tapio Raunio 15:30-15:45 15:45-17:00 Refreshment break Session 4: Codecision and Its Discontents: Intra- Organisational Politics and Institutional Reform in the European Parliament Presented by Adrienne Héritier 17:00-17:30 Discussion sessions 3 and 4 19:30 Evening dinner for speakers 4

5 DAY 2 Friday 4 May 2012 Seminar room 2 09:15-10:45 Session 5: Political Attention Cycles and legislative activity in Western European countries Presented by Emiliano Grossman 10:45-11:00 11:00-12:30 Refreshment break Session 6: Points for discussion Presented by Mark Franklin 12:30-13:30 13:30-15:00 Lunch at the Badia Session 7: Final round table 15:00 Participants departure 5

6 CONTENT OF PRESENTATIONS AND SUGGESTED READINGS Session 1: The Madisonian Turn: The Transformation of Parliamentary Democracy in the Nordic Countries Presented by Kaare Strøm, University of California, San Diego Parliamentary democracy is the most common regime type in the contemporary political world, but the quality of governance depends on effective parliamentary oversight and strong political parties. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have traditionally been strongholds of parliamentary democracy. In recent years, however, critics have suggested that new challenges such as weakened popular attachment, the advent of cartel parties, the judicialization of politics, and European integration have threatened the institutions of parliamentary democracy in the Nordic region. This volume examines these claims and their implications. The authors find that the Nordic states have moved away from their previous resemblance to a Westminster model toward a form of parliamentary democracy with more separation- of- powers features - a Madisonian model. These features are evident both in vertical power relations (e.g., relations with the European Union) and horizontal ones (e.g., increasingly independent courts and central banks). Yet these developments are far from uniform and demonstrate that there may be different responses to the political challenges faced by contemporary Western democracies. This welcome and timely re- evaluation of Nordic politics constitutes a major contribution to comparative government, and is likely to stand as the definitive treatment of politics in the region for many years to come. - Peter Mair, European University Institute Readings: Bergman, Torbjörn and Strøm, Kaare eds. (2011) The Madisonian Turn: Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe, The University of Michigan Press. Especially chapters 1, 2, 8, and 12. Session 2: The Politics of Institutional Change: Parliamentary Rules in European Democracies Presented by: Wolfgang Müller, University of Vienna This talk presents the outlines of a research project conducted together with Ulrich Sieberer of the University of Konstanz. Institutional rules that distribute power between majority and minority actors in parliament are central for understanding parliamentary processes and outcomes. Thus parliamentary actors have incentives to design and change rules to suit their individual purposes and to increase their ability to reach their substantive goals such as implementing their public policy preferences, attaining offices, and improving their electoral prospects. While a considerable amount of scholarship has addressed rule Change in the US Congress (e.g. Binder 1996, 1997, 2006; Schickler 2000, 2001; Wawro/Schickler 2006) only case 6

7 studies have been conducted on such change in parliamentary systems. In our project we aim at the systematic and comparative study of Western European democracies over the post- war period. The talk will outline the major research questions and theoretical expectations, provide information on the empirical approach taken and present a few preliminary results. Readings: Ulrich Sieberer, Wolfgang C. Müller & Maiko Isabelle Heller (2011): Reforming the Rules of the Parliamentary Game: Measuring and Explaining Changes in Parliamentary Rules in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, , West European Politics, 34:5, Session 3: The EU as an external Constraint on National Legislatures Presented by Tapio Raunio, University of Tampere European countries have joined the EU in order to benefit from regional integration. But while member states can certainly benefit from EU membership economically and politically, Europe also acts as a significant constraint on national governments and parliaments. However, there is no scholarly consensus about the extent to which EU actually impacts on the work of domestic legislatures. In my presentation I will first discuss the challenges involved in measuring the Europeanisation of national parliaments, arguing that existing research has largely failed to explain how much and in what ways EU impacts on national legislatures. Drawing on both comparative data and on more detailed evidence from Finland, I present findings about several indicators (EU- related national laws, the use of control instruments in EU matters, and the share of committee, plenary and party group meeting time spent on European matters) that can be used in subsequent comparative research. I also explain why we should expect to find significant variation between the domestic legislatures of EU27. I conclude by discussing briefly how and why political parties have deliberately depoliticized European integration within national parliaments. Readings: Raunio, Tapio and Wiberg, Matti (2010) How to Measure the Europeanisation of a National Legislature? Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, Auel, Kathrin and Raunio, Tapio eds. (2012) National Parliaments, Electorates and EU Affairs. Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien. (Especially the chapters by Auel and Raunio (pp and 47-78). Session 4: Codecision and Its Discontents: Intra- Organisational Politics and Institutional Reform in the European Parliament Presented by Adrienne Héritier, European University Institute This paper investigates a puzzling trend in EU legislative politics: the early adoption of legislation and the de facto shift of decision- making from public inclusive to informal secluded arenas. Previous research has explained why fast- track legislation occurs and evaluated its democratic consequences. This study focuses on the European Parliament s response. We describe how fast- track legislation has informalised legislative decision- making, transformed inter- organisational relations, and created new asymmetrical opportunities and constraints, inducing powershifts between actors. We then discuss the political response, showing that actors seek to redress power shifts, that reform attempts centre on the control of negotiation authority and information flows, and that institutional reform is highly contested. We suggest that the chances of successful reform are low in Parliament as a decentralised organisation 7

8 unless two conditions are met: (i) the extent of fast- track legislation reaches a critical level, and (ii) the organisation goes through a period of wider reform; the former increases the visibility of disempowerment and reputational loss, the latter allows package deals and/or the strategic evocation of collective parliamentary norms. Finally, we show how Parliament s rules pertaining to codecision have been contested, negotiated and reformed from the formal introduction of fast- track legislation in 1999 to the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Negotiating Codecision Files in Based on qualitative document analysis and semi- structured elite interviews, our paper undertakes an empirical plausibility probe of our argument of how fast- track legislation has impacted on intra- organisational politics and reform in Parliament. Our analysis shows that the Parliament in the long- lasting often successful - tug of war with other institutions over increasing its own powers has also a price to pay within its own organization, i.e. a loss in democratic quality and discontent on the part of normal members. Moreover, our argument regarding the factors triggering a redress after a power shift is relevant for all democratic decision- making bodies which have experienced a steady narrowing down of the circle of de facto decision- makers. Readings: Héritier, Adrienne and Reh, Christine (forthcoming) Codecision and Its Discontents: Intra- Organisational Politics and Institutional Reform in the European Parliament. West European Politics. Session 5: Political Attention Cycles and legislative activity in Western European countries Presented by Emiliano Grossman, Institut d Etudes Politiques de Paris This presentation aims at studying the effects of electoral cycles on policy attention. Political budget cycles have been proven to exist in many countries, but their importance appears to have faded over the past 20 years, especially in Western Europe, for a variety of reasons. This paper argues that as budgets became more difficult to use as a means to target certain groups of voters, governments have used their agenda- setting powers to signal their attention to those groups of voters specific demands. Political attention cycles (PACs) describe the contraction of attention around a limited number of electorally salient issues in the wake of elections. This means that incumbent governments will use their agenda- setting powers strategically to emphasize issues dear to their voters while de- emphasizing issues that are potentially more electorally costly. We assume that government attention is mainly determined by issue intrusion, but governments will struggle to increase their control over the agenda as elections approach. In order to study this phenomenon, we will build on data from the Comparative Agendas Project on adopted laws in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the UK. The comparison should allow to further specify the conditions under which PACs will be particularly strong, depending on the relative agenda- setting autonomy of incumbent governments. Readings: Grossman, Emiliano: Strategic Agenda- setting and Political Attention Cycles. Elections, parties and issue competition in France. Also: Wlezien, Christopher and Soroka, Stuart N The Relationship between Public Opinion and Policy in Dalton, Russell J. and Klingemann, Hans- Dieter (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 8