Comments on: Failures in constitutional design are at the heart of the crisis in western democracies

Comments on: Failures in constitutional design are at the heart of the crisis in western democracies https://theloop.ecpr.eu/failures-in-constitutional-design-are-at-the-heart-of-the-crisis-in-western-democracies/ ECPR's Political Science Blog Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:21:04 +0000 hourly 1 By: Francesca Vassallo https://theloop.ecpr.eu/failures-in-constitutional-design-are-at-the-heart-of-the-crisis-in-western-democracies/#comment-42170 Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:21:04 +0000 https://theloop.ecpr.eu/?p=7987#comment-42170 I appreciate the analysis, but I am quite puzzled by a few statements in this commentary. When it comes to the general assessment of the situation in the three countries, I do not see how 'this summer' is the issue. Political chaos was there before this summer. For instance, Italy has been in a precariously instable situation over the last 6 decades, the current and likely change in the political majority is nothing new. The constitutional design chosen in 1946 planned to establish a pure parliamentary system, giving parties in parliament a strong say over the government (to undermine the possibility of a strong PM like the case before 1946). Unfortunately, weak political parties and leaders have contributed to political instability, in addition to plenty of corruption.

The UK has been in a situation of unexpected flux since 2016, after the Brexit vote. The country will now have 4 different PMs over a 6 year period, quite unusual for the UK, whose Westminster model used to be a rare example of parliamentary stability.

The strongest surprise in the commentary is the reference to the current situation in France as a case where 'the strong presidential model breaks down.' What is the evidence for this? First, at this time we do not know whether Macron's party will be in government or not. A coalition with another party (Les Republicans) is possible, in that case Macron would shape the government's agenda quite easily. Even if Macron's party is not in control of government (a case of cohabitation), the French president retains quite strong control on specific policy areas (defense, foreign affairs and European integration-related policies). The French president represents France in Europe, he heads the delegation at EU Council meetings, with the PM sitting next to him. Previous cohabitations have shown that the President can impact important policies in France, even when another party is in control of Parliament. Especially on issues of importance, the gridlock as it is mentioned in the commentary was not common. See book by Lazardeux (2015) "Cohabitation and Conflicting Politics in French Policymaking".

The following sentence from the commentary is unsubstantiated by any research available on France: "In the absence of a clear mechanism for settling conflict between the president and assembly, government action can quickly grind to a halt." If Parliament passes any legislation that the President does not support, there is little the President can do to stop it, other than referring the new law to a constitutional review at the Constitutional Council or discussing it in public to try to shape public opinion against it (something that both Mitterrand and Chirac did in the past during their cohabitations).

It seems to me this comparison of the UK, Italy, France and in part the US is really a comparison of apples and oranges......

]]>