Lecture: Political Institutions I: Legislatures & Executives
Lecture script · about 15–20 minutes spoken · Week 7
Opening
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 names 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.
Both clubs are democratic, but they're wired differently.
You'll meet that choice everywhere. Maybe you're a business major watching a company board replace its chief executive. Maybe you're a nursing student following how a hospital council answers to its members. Maybe you're a neighbor wondering why one city council can remove its mayor and the next one can't. Countries make the same choice, and in this lecture you'll learn to read it.
Here's where we are. Week 1 gave you the line between empirical and normative claims. Week 2 asked what turns power into a right to rule. Weeks 3 and 4 laid out the ideas people argue over, and Week 5 sorted regime types. Week 6 asked what a constitution does. In this lecture we open up the machinery a constitution creates. I'll name what a legislature does, count chambers, split the executive's two roles, and give you one question that sorts three designs. Then we'll treat coalitions as normal and weigh a famous debate with no verdict. Next comes Week 8, with review and the midterm, and then Week 9 turns to the courts.
1. What a legislature does
Think about a city council meeting. Residents line up to talk about a bus route. Members vote on the budget. Then one member asks the city manager why a road repair is running late. In one evening, that council did three different jobs.
Here's the term. A legislature is the elected assembly that represents the people, makes the laws, and oversees the government that carries them out. Three verbs carry that definition: represent, legislate, oversee. Representing means speaking for the people who elected you. Legislating means debating and passing the laws, the budget included. Overseeing means checking the people who run the government, with questions and hearings.
Here's the mistake to watch for. People often think a legislature's whole job is passing laws, because "legislate" is in the name. But a lot of the work is representing voters and watching the executive. A legislature that passed laws and never asked how they were carried out would be doing one job out of three.
Pause and try this. A committee calls in the head of a state transportation department to explain a contract that ran over budget. Which of the three jobs is the committee doing?
Run through the three verbs before you choose.
Here's the answer. It's overseeing, because the committee is checking the people who run the government rather than passing a law or speaking for a district.
Keep this line: represent, legislate, oversee; speak, decide, check.
2. One chamber or two
Imagine a student government. In one design, a single senate passes every rule. In another, the senate must agree with a council that has one delegate from each residence hall. The second design gives each hall a voice. It also means every rule needs two votes instead of one.
That's the choice every country makes. 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.
So which is more common? The Inter-Parliamentary Union keeps a count. Of 188 national parliaments, 81 are bicameral and 107 are unicameral. Add 81 and 107 and you get 188, so the parts fit the whole. Each bicameral parliament has two chambers, so the 81 of them hold 162 chambers. Add the 107 single chambers and you reach 269 chambers in all, which matches the union's own total.
Now the share. Divide 81 by 188 and multiply by 100, and you get about 43.1 percent. So a second chamber is common, but it's held by a large minority of parliaments, not by most. You'll hear looser claims that "about half" have two chambers. Those count differently, so we use the dated count with its source.
The count tells you what countries chose, not which choice is better. Proponents argue that a second chamber is a check on hasty laws and gives states or provinces a voice of their own. Critics respond that it brings gridlock and duplication, and that an unelected chamber can blur who's accountable. The running analysis from Week 4 lives right here. Its thesis is that a new federation should have two chambers, and its key premise is normative. Whether a voice for smaller units is worth slower lawmaking is a value call, and it's yours.
Pause and try this. Someone tells you most countries have two chambers. Using the count, how would you correct that?
Think about whether 81 is more or less than half of 188.
Here's the answer. You'd say only 81 of 188 national parliaments are bicameral, about 43.1 percent, because that's a large minority and not a majority.
3. Head of state and head of government
Think about a sports team. One person is the captain. The captain leads the team onto the field, shakes the other captain's hand, and speaks at the awards dinner. Another person is the coach, who picks the lineup and calls the plays. Some teams split those jobs. On a small team, one person might do both.
Governments split their top jobs the same way. 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 it 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.
We teach these by office and never by the person in the office, because offices last and people change. In the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, the monarch is head of state and the prime minister is head of government. In Germany, the federal president and the chancellor split the roles. In France, the president and the prime minister split them. In the United States, Mexico, and Brazil, one office, the president, holds both. That's 5 countries with two offices and 3 with one, for 8 in all.
Here's the trap. People assume the head of state is always the most powerful person. The word "head" sounds like "boss." But in the United Kingdom, the monarch who represents the state isn't the one who directs policy. Ask which office runs the cabinet, not which title sounds grander.
Pause and try this. In Germany, which office is the head of government?
Picture who leads the cabinet.
Here's the answer. The chancellor is, because the chancellor runs the government day to day while the federal president represents the state.
4. The removal test and three designs
Go back to the two clubs. You could tell them apart with one question: how would a failing leader be removed? The board replaces the hiking club's chair at a meeting. The debate club's president stays unless there's serious misconduct. That question is so useful that I'll give it a name. The removal test is 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, the fused design. 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 comes from Walter Bagehot, in his 1867 book The English Constitution, in the chapter called "The Cabinet." 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 us 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. Germany adds a twist, a constructive vote of no confidence, under which the legislature can remove the chancellor only by electing a successor in the same vote.
Second, the separate design. 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. The U.S. Constitution, signed in 1787, shows it on one page. Article I, Section 1 says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States". Article II, Section 1 says "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Two articles, two powers, two bodies. And Article II, Section 4 allows removal "on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". That's a legal standard for serious wrongdoing, not a vote about popularity.
Third, the mixed design. 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. France is the standard case. When the president and the prime minister come from opposing camps, that's called cohabitation. And semi-presidential doesn't mean a 50/50 split; how much each leads depends on the rules and on who controls the legislature.
Here's the mistake to watch for. People treat a no-confidence vote as a kind of impeachment. Both remove a leader, but a no-confidence vote is political and needs no wrongdoing. Impeachment is legal and needs serious wrongdoing.
Pause and try this. A cabinet loses a confidence vote, and no one has accused anyone of a crime. Is that impeachment?
Ask whether wrongdoing was needed.
Here's the answer. It isn't impeachment, because a no-confidence vote removes a government for losing the legislature's support, with no wrongdoing required.
Keep this line: confidence is political; impeachment is legal.
5. Classifying a made-up constitution
Let's put the test to work on three invented countries. Pelandia, Corvessa, and Draventa are made up for this course, and every number in them is illustrative.
In Pelandia, the 120-seat legislature chooses the prime minister. A no-confidence motion needs a majority of all members. Half of 120 is 60, and one more makes 61 votes. Pelandia also has a ceremonial president, elected by the legislature. Run the removal test: the government falls to a confidence vote. So Pelandia is parliamentary, even with a president.
In Corvessa, voters elect the president for a fixed five-year term, separately from the legislature. Removal is by impeachment for serious wrongdoing only. That's presidential.
In 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. The cabinet can fall; the president can't. That's semi-presidential. One of each, three cases in all.
Now the kind of claim. "Pelandia's legislature can remove the prime minister by a majority vote" is empirical, on the design layer, because you can check it against the text. "Pelandia ought to switch to a presidential design" is normative, on the verdict layer. The removal test sorts designs. It doesn't choose one for you.
Here's the week's signature trap. People think a country with a president must be presidential. But Germany, India, Israel, and Italy have presidents and are parliamentary. That's 4 countries where the title doesn't decide the design.
Pause and try this. Pelandia has a president. Why isn't it a presidential system?
Think about how its government falls.
Here's the answer. Pelandia is parliamentary because its government is removed by a vote of no confidence, and its president is ceremonial and chosen by the legislature.
Keep this line: ask how it falls, not what the leader is called.
6. Coalitions as a normal mode
Think about 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 isn't the group failing. It's how the group gets the project done.
A parliamentary government works the same way. It has to 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.
Here's the mistake to watch for. People read a coalition as a sign that government is broken, because bargaining can look like squabbling. But coalition government is a normal mode of parliamentary government, not a symptom. When no party holds a majority on its own, a majority still has to be built, and a coalition is how it's built. Whether coalitions make better or worse policy is a separate, normative question, and there are serious people on both sides.
One preview, and only one: the electoral system shapes how often coalitions happen, and Week 11 takes that up.
Pause and try this. No party holds a majority in a parliament, and two parties agree on a shared program and split the cabinet. Is that a breakdown of the parliamentary design?
Think about what a parliamentary executive needs to survive.
Here's the answer. It isn't a breakdown, because a coalition is the normal way to build the majority a parliamentary government needs when no single party has one.
7. Linz and the defenders of presidentialism
Back to the debate club. Midway through the year, the members turn against their president, but the rules make them wait until the year ends. The hiking club, meanwhile, swaps its chair in one evening. Which club is better off? That depends on what you value.
That's the classic debate. The political scientist Juan Linz, in a 1990 article called "The Perils of Presidentialism," raised three worries. His article is in copyright, so we teach it in words. First, the fixed term, a set length of time in office that a political disagreement with the legislature can't cut short, makes government rigid. Second, dual democratic legitimacy: the president and the legislature are elected separately, so each can claim to speak for the voters, and there's no clean way to settle a clash. Third, winner-take-all: a single-person presidency gives the whole executive office to one winner, so losing an election means losing all executive power until the next one.
Defenders of presidentialism answer at full strength. They point to identifiability, the claim that voters can see who is responsible for the executive and choose that person directly at the next election. They also point to checks: separate branches restrain each other. And Linz himself observed that the United States is the one presidential democracy with a long record of unbroken constitutional continuity. Defenders read that as evidence the design can last. Linz's followers read it as the exception that needs explaining. One case can't settle a comparative question.
So which design is better? The comparison is still debated, and the verdict is your normative call.
Pause and try this. A speaker says, "Our president lost every ally in the legislature, and we still have years to wait." Which of Linz's three worries is that?
Match the complaint to rigidity, rival mandates, or all-or-nothing stakes.
Here's the answer. It's the rigidity of the fixed term, because the president can't be replaced for losing support until the term runs out.
Closing
Let me pull it together. A legislature represents, legislates, and oversees. Of 188 national parliaments, 81 have two chambers, a large minority, and whether a second chamber is worth it is yours to argue. The head of state speaks for the country, and the head of government runs it. The removal test sorts the designs: confidence votes for parliamentary, impeachment for presidential, and both for semi-presidential, with Bagehot's fusion on one side and Articles I and II on the other. A president doesn't make a system presidential. Coalitions are a normal mode, not a breakdown. Linz warned of rigidity, rival mandates, and winner-take-all stakes, and his critics answered with identifiability and checks.
Next in this module come the slide deck, the Readings and Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Then Week 8, Midterm Review & Exam, pulls Weeks 1 through 7 together.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com