COMPARISONS OF PARLIAMENTARY AND COORDINATED POWER (PRESIDENTIAL) SYSTEMS

Transcription

1 1 Irmgard Hantsche March 2011 Conference on COMPARISONS OF PARLIAMENTARY AND COORDINATED POWER (PRESIDENTIAL) SYSTEMS at Bloomington, Indiana March 4 March 8, 2011 Final Remarks and Summary at the End of the Conference The topic of our conference, Comparisons of Parliamentary and Coordinated Power (Presidential) Systems seemed to be, at first sight, a mere factual comparison of the German and the American institutions and their impact on the instruments and the working of democracy. Yet the topic turned out to be far more complex. For it is not sufficient to compare the provisions of different constitutions however interesting this is and to describe how and to what extent they guarantee the prevalence of democratic principles. It is the democratic principles themselves and their basis of origins that must be reflected. Thus the approach to the theme of our conference had to be more intense and at the same time more extensive and multi-perspective. We had also to ask whether and how our modern society brings about new aspects and perhaps also a different assessment of politics and the fundamentals of democracy. The first two presentations discussed theories of democracy, and both of them were characterized by a comprehensive and a genetic approach. Karl-Heinz Breier focussed mainly on the European political thinking while Will Harris concentrated on the theoretical basis of the American constitution. In his paper WILL HARRIS stressed that a constitution must primarily be assessed from the perspective of its makers, or as the Americans say of the Founders. The intention of these framers and their approach to secure the sovereignty of the people did not only form the

2 2 Constitution but are of greater importance than the actual constitutional provisions. Because of this the political thinking of the past is still extremely significant and must be a guideline for us. After describing four zones of constitutional thinking (1. constitutionalism, i.e. the science of constitution in general; 2. constitution-making, i.e. the sovereignty of the people as a whole; 3. constitution, i.e. the form of the political system; 4. institutions, i.e. the structure of power) Harris lined out the background of the American model of separated branches of power. He did so by giving an overview of the development of political theory from Aristotle to the present time. KARL-HEINZ BREIER on the other hand presented a tour d horizon of the political ideas of the 19 th and 20 th centuries, focussing mainly on Tocqueville and his impact on political thinking. In doing so he contrasted the European approach to politics with the American one. Both scholars stressed the power of ideas, and Breier explicitly called his paper The Power of Ideas and the Perception of the Political. The ideal he set forward is the well-educated philosopher citizen. A constant strife is necessary to work on this target in order to achieve a world of political order which includes a political way of life. For without an inner republic a stable outer republic cannot be established. Therefore civic education, which also implies the moulding of character, is indispensable. The following papers were also based on political theory, yet they dealt with more practical subjects by examining present-day political institutions, instruments and procedures. First Diana Owen and Heinrich Oberreuter discussed the question of how elections contribute to the working of democracy. DIANA OWEN gave a concise overview of the very complex American presidential election system, and she reflected the great difficulties civics instructors experience when trying to teach their students the election process. She pointed out the great significance of media in this respect, particularly as far as young people are concerned. She also presented the results of field studies, giving a great amount of data (often illustrated by charts), e.g. on the knowledge about elections, on voter turnout, on assessing the importance of different educational goals or on constitutional knowledge. Her aim was to find out what impact civic education has, and her result was that it pays off. The data indicate that civic education for instance the Center for Civic Education s We the People -program does not only significantly increase knowledge but also the willingness to vote. HEINRICH OBERREUTER played the counterpart by describing the quite different German electoral system. He stressed the dominating principle of equality which means that every vote counts the same, as Germany does not have a majority but a proportional electoral system. This, however, does not seem to have any effect on the voter turnout which went down drastically in the last few years though it is still considerably higher than in the United States.

3 3 Oberreuter pointed out substantial changes in democratic governance. They affect the integrative representation which does not only imply equal opportunities in electoral competition but also the participation of voters in the discussion of politically relevant matters. They also apply to the growing influence of media and to a new and often show-like quality of election campaigns. But the most aggravating change is that there is a trend towards a post-parliamentary democracy which is shaped by interest groups, experts and networks. All that leads to the question whether elections still matter. Oberreuter believes that they still do but that leadership ought to rely more on substantial arguments than on a dramaturgic media democracy. This brings us to the role that political parties play in elections and government. Werner Patzelt dealt with this from the German and Rick Hardy from the American viewpoint. WERNER PATZELT outlined the structure and mechanism of the party system and party landscape in Germany, and he explained why parties are of such great significance. The reasons lie in the German parliamentary and electoral system but also in the schemes of party financing and in the influence parties have on the civil service and the media. Despite or rather because of the importance of parties most Germans resent party politics. One reason for this is that parties often degenerate into professional apparatus-parties that pay little tribute to the needs of the electorate. Instead of seriously trying to solve problems, they often adhere to tactical considerations. Patzelt believes therefore that political parties in Germany are under pressure to change, but he is confident that they are not at risk to lose their central position in the German polity. One way of reform, so he thinks, could be the introduction of open primaries and/or of plebiscitary instruments. In the United States political parties are also of importance although they play a smaller role in the constitutional system as RICK HARDY explained in his paper. He listed and discussed 10 paradoxes relating to the origin, nature, function, organization, leadership, legal status, and development of political parties which are not even mentioned in the American constitution. Due to historical reasons the United States has a strong two-party-system although it is difficult to clearly define and distinguish the political characteristics of the Republicans and the Democrats and although there are very many minor parties which, however, rarely score electoral victories. Nevertheless these third parties provide several important functions. For instance innovate e ideas often start in third parties which are much more flexible in their political initiative as compared to the two major parties. A comparison of the parliamentary system with the coordinated power (presidential) system also applies to the power of the executive. To what extent is it influenced by the different political structure? Birgit Enzmann and David Adler discussed this question from the German and the

4 4 American viewpoint, and it turned out that the complex constitutional and political set-up in both countries does not allow an easy answer. BIRGIT ENZMANN stated that the possible strength of the executive is rather limited in a parliamentary system. She first set out which characteristics are typical for a strong and for a weak executive. She then analysed the German situation according to these criteria, concentrating mainly on the role of the chancellor. Her conclusion was that the German Basic Law combines the idea of a supreme parliament with a potentially strong executive, allowing, however, a shift of power from one to the other. Birgit Enzmann regards parliament to be the loser in this process, and she believes that this is one reason for the rising discontent of the citizens with the established political system. She hopes that there will be an increasing pressure for change in order to have a strong and vivid parliamentary system according to the constitution. DAVID ADLER also sees flaws as far as the American Constitution is concerned. Its framers did not allocate extensive executive powers to the president. But in the course of time, particularly during the cold war, the presidential power was greatly enlarged in the field of foreign policy. Yet the text of the constitution still assigns only two foreign-affairs-powers to the president: He is commander in chief, and he has the duty to receive ambassadors. Although the Framers granted the authority to initiate military hostilities solely to Congress, the Commander in Chief Clause in combination with the Executive Power Clause enabled a shift of executive power to the president. So by now there is the danger that the president may aggrandize and abuse his powers. Particularly because of the huge dangers ensuing from modern warfare, Adler ended his presentation with the admonition to return to the principles which the Framers of the constitution set down over 200 years ago. The last full working day of our conference was allocated to didactic aspects which was appropriate for a conference being sponsored by the Center for Civic Education (CCE) and the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (BpB). And it turned out that teaching politics cannot be separated from political theory. It is not surprising therefore, that the papers of Joachim Detjen, Margaret Branson and Wolfgang Sander took up many items that had been at least partly discussed in the preceding lectures. So JOACHIM DETJEN in his paper Teaching the German Way of Separating Powers started with an overview of the German system. He stressed the fact that the political reality is often not in correspondence with constitutional law. He demonstrated furthermore that sometimes wrong conceptions are put forward, also in textbooks for schools. Thus the separation of powers is often oversimplified (particularly in charts) with the effect that false images are produced. Detjen believes that despite these flaws and difficulties a basic understanding of the separation of powers can be

5 5 implemented even in elementary schools. For instance these students can examine local problems such as the question of whether the mayor or the city council would do a good job if they were not subjected to any control. Therefore this complex but very crucial issue can and should be put on the agenda of civic education for all grades. For MARGARET BRANSON the intellectual outcomes of our teaching in the classroom ought to have the greatest priority. She referred in this context to the papers of Karl-Heinz Breier and Will Harris and to their claim that our students should become philosopher citizens and active citizens who show passion and commitment. Margaret Branson s paper Suffrage, Elections and Some Implications For Civic Education in the United States focussed on three aspects which should guide our teaching of civics: 1. The historical perspective which will explain the development of the electoral system. 2. The comparative perspective which will demonstrate how much the American electoral system differs from other democracies. 3. The constitutional perspective which will make clear in what way present trends and issues (e.g. initiatives and referenda, targeting, or absentee and early voting) can be used as vehicles for teaching political understanding, in order to educate responsible and discerning citizens. These three aspects have to work together in order to train young people to become good citizens who are not just spectators but will be democratic voters and participants that can navigate the political system. In the beginning of his paper WOLFGANG SANDER distinguished four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive knowledge, and he applied these four different types to the topic of elections, stressing in particular the importance of conceptual knowledge. New models of teaching may help in this, and Sander therefore gave four innovative examples for this (three from Germany and one from Austria) that can incite students to take an active part in learning. In addition to explicating these models Sander pleaded for genetic learning by reconstructing the political problems of the past and illustrating how they were solved. This approach, so he believes, would stimulate a shift in teaching from facts to concepts, however, so far neither methods nor material have been developed in Germany for this kind of approach. At the end of our conference we could experience two practical examples of civic education. As far as the first example was concerned we were just observers, the audience of TERRY MASON s undergraduate social studies education class. It demonstrated in a mock-hearing with three judges (they were participants of our conference) how and with which result the CCE s We the People

6 6 textbooks (the basis was the textbook for primary schools) and teaching schemes are being used for student activitiess that cover as well the presentation of statements as the answering of questions. In the second experiment we were not spectators but actors. In the Center on Congress at Indiana University ELAINE LARSON, with the help of CHRIS CAVANAUGH, invited us to a virtual visit of Congress. This visit can take place in any computer-lab-classroom and it enables students to become online members of Congress. Thus they cannot only learn the basic ways that Congress works, but they may also propose their own ideas for legislation if they do not prefer to play about as I did, for it was very tempting to do so, and students may very well think the same. The effect, therefore, is rather doubtful. I think we had an interesting and a very stimulating conference. I personally have more questions now than I had before despite or perhaps because of the many answers and the bulk of information I got. But this, probably, is a very good and not at all a bad result of our meeting. So, thank you very much for your papers and the comments during the discussion sessions. Thank you also for patiently listening to the very imperfect attempt of taking my share in what the agenda calls Essays, Thoughts, and Summaries. I am sure John Hale will do much better in his final remarks. So, look ahead to his presentation now!