← Introduction to Political Science outline

Week 7 · Chapter

Chapter 7 — Political Institutions I: Legislatures & Executives

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 5 (analyze political institutions — legislatures, executives, and judiciaries — including the parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential designs, government formation and removal, judicial review and judicial independence, and the counter-majoritarian debate), Objective 4 (compare regime types and constitutional structures — direct and representative, electoral and liberal democracy; authoritarian and totalitarian rule; democratization and backsliding; what constitutions do; the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week is about the machinery of government: who makes the laws, who carries them out, and how the two are wired together. The legislature (the elected assembly that makes the laws) can have one chamber or two, and you will read a real count of how many countries choose each. The executive (the people who carry the laws out) can split its jobs between two offices or hold them in one. You will meet three designs, parliamentary (the leader comes out of the legislature), presidential (the leader is elected separately), and semi-presidential (a mix of both), and one question that tells them apart: how would a failing government be removed? You will not be told which design is best; you will be shown how to compare them fairly.

Why you already care about this

Picture two student clubs on the same campus. In the hiking club, the 40 members elect a board of 7, and the board picks a chair. If the chair loses the board's trust, the board can vote in a new chair at the next meeting. In the debate club, all 40 members elect a president directly for the whole year. The board can remove that president only for serious misconduct, such as taking money from the club account.

Both of your clubs are democratic, and both have rules. But they are wired differently. In the hiking club, the people who make the rules and the person who leads are joined: the chair lives or dies by the board. In the debate club, they are separate: the president has a mandate of their own and a term the board cannot cut short over a disagreement.

Countries make the same choice you see in those two clubs. Some join the leader to the legislature, and some keep the two apart. This chapter shows you how to tell the designs apart in under a minute, and why thoughtful people disagree about which one works better.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

name the three jobs a legislature does and say whether a legislature is unicameral or bicameral;
read the Inter-Parliamentary Union's count of the world's parliaments and say what it shows and does not;
tell the head of state from the head of government, by office;
classify a constitution as parliamentary, presidential, or semi-presidential with the removal test;
explain why coalition government is a normal mode, not a breakdown;
state Linz's worries about presidentialism and the replies to them at full strength.

Carry this line with you: ask how it falls — not what the leader is called.

Where we are

Already covered: Weeks 1 to 4 gave you the empirical/normative distinction, power and legitimacy, and the ideas people argue over. Week 5 sorted regime types, and Week 6 asked what constitutions do.
This week: what legislatures and executives do, one chamber or two, head of state versus head of government, and the parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential designs.
How they connect: Week 6 showed that a constitution creates and divides power; this week you look inside the divided machinery and see two very different ways to wire it.
Where we're going next: Week 8 reviews Weeks 1 through 7, adds one reading tool, and holds the midterm; then Week 9 turns to the third branch, the courts.

Week 1 taught you to sort a claim as empirical (checkable against evidence) or normative (argued from values). You will use that sort all week, because every institution can be described and every institution can be judged, and those are two different jobs. Week 4 introduced the running analysis, an illustrative argument for a second chamber in a new federation. It returns in Section 2. Week 6 named the separation of powers. This chapter shows that some democracies separate the executive from the legislature, and many others fuse them on purpose.

1. Name what a legislature does: represent, legislate, oversee

Think about a city council meeting. Residents line up to speak about a new bus route. Council members vote on the budget. Then one member asks the city manager why a road repair is six months late. In one evening, that council has done three different jobs.

A legislature is the elected assembly that represents the people, makes the laws, and oversees the government that carries them out.

Those three jobs have names.

Represent. Members speak for the people who elected them, bringing their concerns into the room where decisions get made.
Legislate. Members debate, amend, and pass the laws, including the budget.
Oversee. Members watch the people who run the government, asking questions, holding hearings, and demanding answers.

Worked example — which job is it? Sort each scene from an illustrative state legislature.

A member reads aloud letters from farmers in her district about a drought. She is speaking for the people who elected her. Job: represent.
The chamber votes on a bill that changes the speed limit on rural highways. Members are making law. Job: legislate.
A committee calls the head of the transportation department to explain a contract that ran over budget. Members are checking the people who run the government. Job: oversee.

In words: one body, three jobs, and a single meeting can show all three.

Misconception check. Students often think a legislature's whole job is passing laws. That is tempting, because "legislate" is in the name. But many hours of legislative work go to representing voters and overseeing the executive. A legislature that passed laws and never asked how they were carried out would be doing one job out of three.

Memory hook: represent, legislate, oversee — speak, decide, check.

2. Count the chambers: one or two?

Imagine a student government. In one design, a single student senate passes every rule. In another, a senate elected by class year must agree with a council made up of one delegate from each residence hall. The second design gives the residence halls a voice of their own, and it also means every rule needs two votes instead of one.

That is the choice every country makes about its legislature.

A unicameral legislature is a legislature with a single chamber, so one assembly passes every law on its own.
A bicameral legislature is a legislature with two chambers, usually chosen in different ways, that must both act before a bill becomes law.

How common is each? The Inter-Parliamentary Union keeps a count of the world's national parliaments.

Worked example — reading the parliament count. The Inter-Parliamentary Union reports that of 188 national parliaments, 81 are bicameral and 107 unicameral. Work through it step by step.

Check the parts. 81 + 107 = 188. The two groups add up to the whole.
Count the chambers. Each bicameral parliament has two chambers, so 81 × 2 = 162 chambers. Add the unicameral ones: 162 + 107 = 269 chambers. That matches the IPU's own total of 269 chambers.
Find the shares. The bicameral share is 81 ÷ 188 × 100 ≈ 43.1 percent. The unicameral share is 107 ÷ 188 × 100 ≈ 56.9 percent. Check: 43.1 + 56.9 = 100.

In words: a second chamber is a common choice held by a large minority of national parliaments, not by most.

Notice what the count shows and does not. It shows how many parliaments have one chamber or two, as the IPU counted them. It does not show which design works better, and it does not say why each country chose as it did. You will see looser statements that "about half" of legislatures have two chambers. Those count differently, for example by including state or provincial chambers, so this course uses the IPU count with its source.

The debate over a second chamber

Here the facts stop and your argument starts. Proponents argue that a second chamber is a check on hasty laws, since a bill must survive two votes, and that it can give territorial units, such as states or provinces, a voice of their own. Critics respond that a second chamber brings gridlock and duplication. Two chambers can block each other, and a chamber that is unelected or badly apportioned can blur who is accountable for a decision.

The running analysis from Week 4 lives inside this debate. Its thesis is that a new democracy designed as a federation should give itself a bicameral legislature. Its empirical premise from the IPU count is the one you checked above. Its normative premise, labelled as such, is that giving smaller units a voice they would lose in a population-only chamber is worth slower lawmaking. The strongest counterargument is that most parliaments are unicameral and a federation could protect its units another way, through a constitutional court or an amendment rule. The reply is that the thesis is about federations, not every democracy. Which side persuades you is a normative call, and it is yours.

Misconception check. Students often think most countries have two chambers, because the U.S. Congress has a House and a Senate. That is tempting when the one legislature you know best is bicameral. But the IPU count is 81 bicameral out of 188, about 43.1 percent. Two chambers is common, and it is not the majority choice.

Memory hook: 81 of 188 — a large minority, not most.

3. Split the executive: head of state versus head of government

Picture a sports team. One person is the team captain, who leads the team onto the field, shakes hands with the other captain, and speaks for the team at the awards dinner. Another person is the coach, who picks the lineup and calls the plays. Some teams split those jobs between two people. On a small team, one person might do both.

Governments split their top jobs the same way, and you can learn to spot the split. First, the whole branch:

The executive is the office or group of offices that carries out the laws, runs the day-to-day administration, and sets the direction of policy.

Inside the executive sit two roles.

The head of state is the office that represents the state as a whole, at home and abroad, often in a largely ceremonial role.
The head of government is the office that runs the government day to day, leads the cabinet, and directs policy.

This course teaches these roles by office and never by officeholder. Offices last; the people in them change at every election or succession.

Worked example — the office table. Here is how eight countries assign the two roles.

Head of state and head of government by office in eight countries
Country	Head of state	Head of government	Offices
United Kingdom	the monarch	the prime minister	two
Canada	the monarch	the prime minister	two
Japan	the monarch	the prime minister	two
Germany	the federal president	the chancellor	two
France	the president	the prime minister	two
United States	the president	the president	one
Mexico	the president	the president	one
Brazil	the president	the president	one

Count them with your finger on the last column. Two offices in 5 countries; one office in 3 countries. Tally: 5 + 3 = 8 countries.

In words: in five of these countries the person who speaks for the nation is not the person who runs the government; in three, one office does both.

Misconception check. Students often think the head of state is always the most powerful person in the country. That is tempting, because the word "head" sounds like "boss". But in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, the monarch is head of state while the prime minister directs policy. Ask which office runs the cabinet, not which title sounds grander.

Memory hook: the head of state speaks for the country; the head of government runs it.

4. Apply the removal test: three designs

Go back to the two clubs. The hiking club's chair can be replaced at any meeting by the board. The debate club's president serves the full year unless removed for misconduct. You can tell the clubs apart with one question: how would a failing leader be removed?

Political scientists use the same question for countries, and so will you. This chapter calls it the removal test: the question of how a failing government would be removed, by a vote of no confidence, by impeachment, or by both, used to tell the three executive designs apart.

The fused design: parliamentary

A parliamentary system is a design in which the executive, a prime minister and cabinet, is drawn from the legislature, has no fixed term, and governs only while it keeps the legislature's confidence.
A vote of no confidence is a vote in which a majority of the legislature declares that it no longer supports the cabinet, which removes the government in a parliamentary system.

The classic description of this design comes from Walter Bagehot (1867), The English Constitution, in the chapter "The Cabinet". In the Project Gutenberg edition, he wrote: "The efficient secret of the English Constitution may be described as the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers."

That gives you the term. Fusion of powers is the close union of the executive and legislative powers in a parliamentary system, where the cabinet sits in and answers to the legislature. Bagehot's word "fusion" is the point: in this design, the people who run the government sit in the legislature and answer to it.

One variation is worth knowing. A constructive vote of no confidence is a no-confidence rule, used in Germany, under which the legislature can remove the chancellor only by electing a successor in the same vote. It makes removal harder, because critics must agree on a replacement, not only on a complaint.

The separate design: presidential

A presidential system is a design in which the chief executive is elected separately from the legislature for a fixed term and can be removed only by impeachment for serious wrongdoing.
A fixed term is a set length of time in office that a political disagreement with the legislature cannot cut short.
Impeachment is the legal process for removing an officeholder for serious wrongdoing, such as the U.S. standard of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than for a loss of political support.

The U.S. Constitution, signed in 1787, shows the separate design on one page. Article I, Section 1 reads "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States". Article II, Section 1 reads "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Two articles vest two powers in two bodies. And Article II, Section 4 allows removal "on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". That is a legal standard for serious wrongdoing. Losing a policy fight does not meet it.

The mixed design: semi-presidential

A semi-presidential system is a design that pairs a popularly elected president holding real powers with a prime minister and cabinet answerable to the legislature.
Cohabitation is the situation in a semi-presidential system when the president and the prime minister come from opposing political camps.

France is the standard case. Its president is elected by the voters and holds real powers, while its prime minister and cabinet need the support of the legislature.

Worked example — the removal test on the three designs. Ask how a failing government would be removed.

Parliamentary: the legislature passes a vote of no confidence, and the cabinet falls.
Presidential: the president stays to the end of the fixed term unless impeached and convicted for serious wrongdoing.
Semi-presidential: the prime minister and cabinet can fall to a no-confidence vote; the president, elected separately, does not.

In words: confidence only, impeachment only, or confidence for the cabinet with a separately elected president beside it.

In practice (your tools). You can check every quotation in this section yourself. Open the National Archives page titled "The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription" and use your browser's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) to search executive Power and then high Crimes. For Bagehot, open the Project Gutenberg landing page for The English Constitution, choose "Read online now," and search efficient secret. Copy the words as the page prints them, capital letters included.

Misconception check. Students often treat a vote of no confidence as a kind of impeachment. That is tempting, because both remove a leader. But a no-confidence vote is political: the legislature has lost faith, and no wrongdoing is needed. Impeachment is legal: it needs serious wrongdoing, such as treason or bribery. A second trap sits nearby. Students often think parliamentary systems do not elect their executive. They do, one step removed: voters elect the legislature, and the legislature's majority produces the prime minister.

A caveat on the mixed design: semi-presidential does not mean a 50/50 split of power. How much the president or the prime minister leads depends on the constitution's details and on who controls the legislature, which is why cohabitation matters.

Memory hook: confidence is political; impeachment is legal.

5. Classify a made-up constitution: Pelandia, Corvessa, Draventa

Now you put the removal test to work on three invented countries. Pelandia, Corvessa, and Draventa are made up for this course, and every number in them is illustrative.

Worked example — three made-up constitutions. For each one, you read the rules and ask the removal test.

Pelandia. The 120-seat legislature chooses the prime minister, who governs while the legislature supports the cabinet. A no-confidence motion needs a majority of all members. Half of 120 is 120 ÷ 2 = 60, and a majority is 60 + 1 = 61 votes. The legislature also elects a ceremonial president. Removal test: a vote of no confidence. Design: parliamentary, even with a president.
Corvessa. Voters elect the president for a fixed five-year term, separately from the legislature. The president can be removed only by impeachment for serious wrongdoing. Removal test: impeachment, not a confidence vote. Design: presidential.
Draventa. Voters elect a president who leads foreign policy and appoints the prime minister. The prime minister and cabinet must keep the legislature's confidence. Removal test: the cabinet falls to a no-confidence vote, but the president does not. Design: semi-presidential.

Tally the sort: 1 parliamentary + 1 presidential + 1 semi-presidential = 3 cases.

Now name the kind and the layer of two sentences about Pelandia. "The 120-seat legislature can remove the prime minister by a majority vote" is empirical, on the design layer: you can check it against the made-up constitution's text. "Pelandia ought to switch to a presidential design" is normative, on the verdict layer. The removal test sorts designs; it does not tell you which one a country should choose.

Misconception check. Students often think a country with a president must be a presidential system. That is tempting, because the system and the office share a name. But Germany, India, Israel, and Italy have presidents and are parliamentary, which makes 4 countries where the title does not decide the design. Pelandia makes the same point. Its president is ceremonial, and its government falls to a confidence vote.

Memory hook: ask how it falls — not what the leader is called.

6. Treat coalition government as normal

Imagine a group project with three teammates who each want a different topic. Nobody can win alone, so two of them agree on a topic and split the work. That deal is not a failure of the group. It is how the group gets the project done.

Parliamentary governments can work the same way, and you will see why. A parliamentary executive must keep a majority of the legislature behind it. When no single party holds that majority, parties make a deal.

Coalition government is a government formed when two or more parties agree on a shared program and share the cabinet because no single party holds a majority of the legislature.

Worked example — counting to a majority (illustrative). A made-up country has a 100-seat legislature. Its largest party holds 44 seats, the second party 31, and the third party 25. Check the parts: 44 + 31 + 25 = 100. A majority is 100 ÷ 2 + 1 = 51 seats, and no party has it alone. Try the pairs. The largest and the third: 44 + 25 = 69. The second and the third: 31 + 25 = 56. The largest and the second: 44 + 31 = 75. Every pair clears 51, so there are three possible two-party coalitions. Which one forms depends on what the parties can agree on, which is a matter of bargaining, not arithmetic.

In words: when no party has a majority, a majority still exists; it has to be built.

One preview sentence only: the electoral system shapes how often coalitions happen, and Week 11 takes that up.

Misconception check. Students often read a coalition as a sign that a government is broken. That is tempting, because bargaining between parties can look like squabbling. But coalition government is a normal mode of parliamentary government, not a symptom: it is how a majority gets built when no party holds one alone. Whether coalitions produce better or worse policy is a separate, normative question with defenders on both sides.

Memory hook: no majority on its own? Build one.

7. Weigh the trade-off: Linz versus the defenders of presidentialism

Back to the two clubs. Midway through the year, the debate club's members turn against their president. Under the club's rules they must wait until the year ends. Meanwhile the hiking club's board replaces its chair in one evening. Which club is better off? It depends on what you value: stability and a direct choice, or flexibility and a leader tied to the board.

That is the classic debate in comparative politics. The political scientist Juan Linz (1990), in his article "The Perils of Presidentialism", raised three worries. His article is in copyright, so this course teaches it in words.

Rigidity. The fixed term makes government rigid: a president who has lost support cannot be replaced until the term ends.
Dual democratic legitimacy. This is the situation in a presidential system in which the president and the legislature are elected separately, so each can claim to speak for the voters. When they clash, there is no clean way to decide whose mandate wins.
Winner-take-all. This is the feature of a single-person presidency that gives the whole executive office to one winner, so losing an election means losing all executive power until the next one. Higher stakes raise the cost of losing.

Defenders of presidentialism reply at full strength, too, and you should hear them out.

Identifiability. This is the claim made for presidential systems that voters can see who is responsible for the executive and choose that person directly at the next election. In a coalition, critics of parliamentary rule point out, voters may not know whom to blame.
Checks. Separate branches restrain each other. A president needs the legislature to pass laws, and the legislature cannot remove the president over a policy fight, so each side can stop the other's worst ideas.

Linz himself observed that the United States is the one presidential democracy with a long record of unbroken constitutional continuity. Defenders of presidentialism read that as evidence the design can last. Linz's followers read it as the exception that needs explaining. That is a caveat on both sides: one case cannot settle a comparative question.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two:

(a) Imagine you are writing a constitution for a new country. State the strongest case for the design you find less appealing, as its best defender would state it.
(b) Think of a group you belong to (a club, a workplace, a team). Is its leader fused with its board or separate from it, and how would a failing leader be removed?

Misconception check. Students often think Linz proved that presidential systems fail. That is tempting, because "perils" sounds like a verdict. But Linz offered an argument about risks, and his critics answered it with identifiability and checks. The comparison is still debated. A quiz can ask what each side claims; no one in this course will tell you which side is right.

Memory hook: Linz worries about rigidity, rival mandates, and all-or-nothing stakes; defenders answer with identifiability and checks.

Key terms

legislature — The elected assembly that represents the people, makes the laws, and oversees the government that carries them out. (first used: 1. Name what a legislature does: represent, legislate, oversee)
unicameral legislature — A legislature with a single chamber, so one assembly passes every law on its own. (first used: 2. Count the chambers: one or two?)
bicameral legislature — A legislature with two chambers, usually chosen in different ways, that must both act before a bill becomes law. (first used: 2. Count the chambers: one or two?)
executive — The office or group of offices that carries out the laws, runs the day-to-day administration, and sets the direction of policy. (first used: 3. Split the executive: head of state versus head of government)
head of state — The office that represents the state as a whole, at home and abroad, often in a largely ceremonial role. (first used: 3. Split the executive: head of state versus head of government)
head of government — The office that runs the government day to day, leads the cabinet, and directs policy. (first used: 3. Split the executive: head of state versus head of government)
removal test — The question of how a failing government would be removed, by a vote of no confidence, by impeachment, or by both, used to tell the three executive designs apart. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
parliamentary system — A design in which the executive, a prime minister and cabinet, is drawn from the legislature, has no fixed term, and governs only while it keeps the legislature's confidence. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
vote of no confidence — A vote in which a majority of the legislature declares that it no longer supports the cabinet, which removes the government in a parliamentary system. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
fusion of powers — The close union of the executive and legislative powers in a parliamentary system, where the cabinet sits in and answers to the legislature. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
constructive vote of no confidence — A no-confidence rule, used in Germany, under which the legislature can remove the chancellor only by electing a successor in the same vote. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
presidential system — A design in which the chief executive is elected separately from the legislature for a fixed term and can be removed only by impeachment for serious wrongdoing. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
fixed term — A set length of time in office that a political disagreement with the legislature cannot cut short. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
impeachment — The legal process for removing an officeholder for serious wrongdoing, such as the U.S. standard of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than for a loss of political support. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
semi-presidential system — A design that pairs a popularly elected president holding real powers with a prime minister and cabinet answerable to the legislature. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
cohabitation — The situation in a semi-presidential system when the president and the prime minister come from opposing political camps. (first used: 4. Apply the removal test: three designs)
coalition government — A government formed when two or more parties agree on a shared program and share the cabinet because no single party holds a majority of the legislature. (first used: 6. Treat coalition government as normal)
dual democratic legitimacy — The situation in a presidential system in which the president and the legislature are elected separately, so each can claim to speak for the voters. (first used: 7. Weigh the trade-off: Linz versus the defenders of presidentialism)
winner-take-all — The feature of a single-person presidency that gives the whole executive office to one winner, so losing an election means losing all executive power until the next one. (first used: 7. Weigh the trade-off: Linz versus the defenders of presidentialism)
identifiability — The claim made for presidential systems that voters can see who is responsible for the executive and choose that person directly at the next election. (first used: 7. Weigh the trade-off: Linz versus the defenders of presidentialism)

Summary

A legislature does three jobs: it represents, legislates, and oversees.
Of 188 national parliaments, 81 are bicameral and 107 unicameral: a large minority, not most.
Whether a second chamber is worth it is a normative question with strong cases on both sides.
The head of state speaks for the country; the head of government runs it; some countries split the roles and some join them.
The removal test sorts the designs: no-confidence for parliamentary, impeachment for presidential, both for semi-presidential.
Bagehot's "efficient secret" is fusion; Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution show separation.
A country with a president is not necessarily presidential.
Coalition government is a normal mode of parliamentary government, not a breakdown.
Linz warned of rigidity, dual legitimacy, and winner-take-all stakes; defenders answer with identifiability and checks; the verdict is yours.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A made-up island country has a king who opens the assembly each year and signs its laws. The assembly elects a premier, who serves until the assembly votes her out. Which design is this, and which office is the head of government?
A made-up country's 90-seat legislature can remove the cabinet by a majority of all members. How many votes does a no-confidence motion need? Show the steps.
A made-up region has 12 provincial assemblies, and 3 of them are bicameral. How many chambers are there in all, and what percent of the assemblies are bicameral?
An invented speaker says: "Our president lost every ally in the legislature two years ago, and we still have three years to wait." Which of Linz's worries is the speaker describing, and what reply would a defender of presidentialism give?

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

It is parliamentary. Apply the removal test: the premier serves until the assembly votes her out, which is a vote of no confidence, and she is drawn from the assembly. The premier is the head of government, because she runs the government. The king is the head of state, a separate office, so this country has two offices.
It needs 46 votes. Half of 90 is 90 ÷ 2 = 45, and a majority of all members is 45 + 1 = 46. A tie at 45 is not a majority.
There are 15 chambers, and 25 percent of the assemblies are bicameral. The bicameral assemblies hold 3 × 2 = 6 chambers. The other 12 − 3 = 9 assemblies are unicameral, with 9 chambers. In all, 6 + 9 = 15 chambers. The bicameral share is 3 ÷ 12 × 100 = 25 percent.
The speaker is describing the rigidity of the fixed term: a president who has lost support cannot be replaced until the term ends. A defender of presidentialism would answer with identifiability and checks. Voters know exactly whom to hold responsible at the next election, and the legislature that lost faith can still block the president's proposals in the meantime. Notice that neither side's point settles which design is better.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Next week, the three-layer read rule, design versus practice versus verdict, ties these institutions to everything before the midterm.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com