Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:06:04.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semi-presidentialism and Democratic Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

ROBERT ELGIE  and
IAIN MCMENAMIN
ROBERT ELGIE
Affiliation:
School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Irelandrobert.elgie@dcu.ie and iain.mcmenamin@dcu.ie
IAIN MCMENAMIN
Affiliation:
School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Irelandrobert.elgie@dcu.ie and iain.mcmenamin@dcu.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a long-standing and widespread consensus that semi-presidentialism is bad for democratic performance. This article examines whether there is empirical evidence to support the arguments against semi-presidentialism. Examining countries that are incompletely consolidated and yet are not autocratic, we identify the relationship between democratic performance and the three main arguments against semi-presidentialism – the strength of the presidency, cohabitation, and divided minority government. We find that there is a strong and negative association between presidential power and democratic performance, but that cohabitation and divided minority government do not have the negative consequences that the literature predicts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , December 2008 , pp. 323 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, Kurlat, Sergio and Wacziarg, Romain (2002), ‘Fractionalization’, NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 9411, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Azevedo, Elisabete and Nijzink, Lia (2007), ‘Semi-Presidentialism in Guinea-Bissau: The Lesser of Two Evils?’, in Elgie, Robert and Moestrup, Sophia (eds), Semi-Presidentialism Outside Europe, London: Routledge, pp. 137–60.Google Scholar
Birch, Sarah (2003), Electoral Systems and Political Transformation in Post-Communist Europe (One Europe or Several?), London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Colton, Timothy J. and Skach, Cindy (2005), ‘A Fresh Look at Semipresidentialism: The Russian Predicament’, Journal of Democracy, 16 (3): 113–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, Robert (2005), ‘A Fresh Look at Semi-Presidentialism Varieties on a Theme’, Journal of Democracy, 16 (3): 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend (2004), ‘Constitutional Design for Divided Societies’, Journal of Democracy, 15 (2): 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan J. (1994), ‘Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does It Make a Difference?’, in Linz, J. J. and Valenzuela, A. (eds), The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Comparative Perspectives, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 3–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan J. and Stepan, Alfred (1996), Problems of Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G. and Robert Gurr, Ted (2003), ‘Peace and Conflict 2003’, Centre for International Development and Conflict Management, Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, (http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/publications/papers/peace_and_conflict_2003.pdf).Google Scholar
Moestrup, Sophia (2007), ‘Semi-Presidentialism in Young Democracies: Help or Hindrance?’, in Elgie, Robert and Moestrup, Sophia (eds), Semi-presidentialism Outside Europe, London: Routledge, pp. 30–55.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., and Limongi, F. (2000), Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, B. R. (2004), ‘Crafting a Constitution for Afghanistan’, Journal of Democracy, 15 (3): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siaroff, Alan (2003), ‘Comparative Presidencies: The Inadequacy of the Presidential, Semi-Presidential and Parliamentary Distinction’, European Journal of Political Research, 42 (3): 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Søberg (2005), ‘Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns’, French Politics, 3 (3): 323–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Søberg (2006), ‘Comparative Executive–Legislative Relations’, in Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, Sarah A., and Rockman, Bert A. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 344–65.Google Scholar
Skach, Cindy (2005), Borrowing Constitutional Designs: Constitutional Law in Weimar Germany and the French Fifth Republic, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stepan, Alfred and Suleiman, Ezra N. (1995), ‘The French Fifth Republic: A Model for Import? Reflections on Poland and Brazil’, in Chehabi, H. E. and Stepan, A. (eds), Politics, Society, and Democracy: Comparative Studies, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 393–414.Google Scholar
Suleiman, Ezra N. (1994), ‘Presidentialism and Political Stability in France’, in Linz, J. J. and Valenzuela, A. (eds), The Failure of Presidential Democracy, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 137–162.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Arturo (2004), ‘Latin American Presidencies Interrupted’, Journal of Democracy, 15 (4): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar