COMPARATIVE

POLITICAL
INSTITUTION
A.Y. 2020-2021
2° SEMESTER – LESSON 7 – 23-03-2021
Davide Vittori
TOPICS

• Elections (yes…sorry!)
•Referenda in Europe
•Bonus: Is referendum “good” for democracy?
•(if there’s time) Patterns of Democracy – A small review
Types of electoral systems
 Single-member
plurality (FPTP) + 2
Round System
 More sophisticated than FPTP. The candidate must get a majority
(50%+1) of the votes.
Alternative Vote Voters fill in a ballot paper where they number the candidates in
(Instant Runoff) – order of preference – that is, they put 1 for their first preference;
2 for their second choice…

Australia We count all the first (top) preferences that voters have given, as
now. If one candidate gets majority support, he/she win the seat.

If not, the candidate who has the fewest 1st preference votes is
knocked out of the contest, and we look at the second
preferences of their voters, redistributing these votes to the
remaining candidates in line with these voters’ number 2 choice.

Reward candidates that are not disliked by the electorate.

Alternative vote: example
 Proportional representation
• The magnitude of the district determines
the disproportionality
• Representativeness: proportional vs.
plurality. What’s best? WDYT?
• What’s disproportionality?

The least squares index (LSq), which measures

disproportionality between the vote distribution and the seat
distribution

https://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/people/mich
ael_gallagher/ElSystems/Docts/IndicesCalc.pdf
Proportional representation: Highest average

• D’Hondt has a progressive quota of 1-2-

3-4-5-6 etc.
• Sainte-Lague has a different method for
• Widely used in several prop. elections
the quota:
• It favours the largest parties.
• 1, 3,5,7,9,11, 13
• It favours the smallest parties.
34.000/1…34.000/3…
Which party gets the third seat? Fourth?
1) 34.000 2) 25.000 3)15.000 4) 12.000 5)
11.333 6)10.000 7) 8.333
Proportional representation: Highest average – D’Hondt
Proportional representation: Sainte-Lague
• Sainte-Lague has a different method for the quota:
• 1, 3,5,7,9,11, 13
6800
• It favours the smallest parties.
5000

5000 3000 34.000/1…34.000/3…

4000 2400

3000 2000

1333 800

6800

5000

5000 3000

4000 2400

6800
3000 2000

5000
1333 800

5000 3000

4000 2400

3000 2000

1333 800
Proportional representation: Highest average

6800 6800

5000 5000

5000 3000
5000 3000

4000 2400
4000 2400

3000 2000
3000 2000

1333 800 1333 800

6800 6800

5000 5000

5000 3000 5000 3000

4000 2400 4000 2400

3000 2000
3000 2000

1333 800 1333 800

Proportional representation: Highest average
1) D’Hondt: the first party gets three seats, the second 2,
the third 1, the fourth 1, the fifth 0.
6800 2) Sainte-Lague: the first party gets 2 seats, the second 2,
5000 the third 1, the fourth 1, the fifth 1.
5000 3000

4000 2400

3000 2000 If you are the first party and you have to form a coalition
1333 800
between parties (as no party has a relative majority), the
electoral law changes your options.
WDYT?

6800 2
5000 2
5000 3000

4000 2400

3000 2000 1
1333 800
Proportional representation: Largest Remainders – Hare vs.
Droop
• 100.000/7 = 14.286 quota for one seat.
• 34.000 = 2 quotas. After the first
round of counting, only four seats are
allocated.
• The remaining seats allocated with the
largest remainder quotas.
• Droop 100.000/seats + 1
 Mixed Method: Proportional + Plurality (Ger + ITA)
Half of the Members of the Bundestag are elected
directly from Germany’s 299 constituencies, the
other half via party lists in Germany’s sixteen
Länder (states).

The first vote allows voters to elect their local

representatives.
The second vote is cast for a party list.
And it is this second vote that determines the
relative strengths of the parties represented in the
Bundestag.

598 seats: 5% threshold, 3 constituency seats.

Seats in the Bundestag in proportion with the

number of votes it has received.
REFERENDA IN
EUROPE
Direct democracy and its use
WHAT IS A REFERENDUM • It’s one of the tools, which is used in
democratic polities, to implement
direct democracy.
• Yet, direct democracy has a much
wider meaning (with negative
connotations, too: e.g. plebiscite).
• Direct democracy as opposed to
“indirect” democracy (e.g. democracy
as a chain of delegation from the
people to the decision).
WHAT IS A REFERENDUM • A mass electorate vote on one or
some public issues.
• Usually, referenda concern specific
issues (either constitutional or related
to specific topics).
• Referenda in this regard are different
from elections.
• Only one sub-type can be considered
an hybrid-case: recall elections.
 RECALL
Direct democracy in action
 RECALL
Direct democracy in action in the US
 Direct democracy is on the rise around the world
(Scarrow 2001)

Increasing demand of a more direct involvement in the

decision-making (Dalton 2002).

REFERENDUM:
PATTERNS Local referenda substantially outnumber national’s
(but their impact is far-reaching)

Growth of national referenda…on EU issue (EU as a very controversial,

cross-cutting issue).
Yet, they are less interesting for the people, lower turnout (54.1% vs. 74.%,
Renwick, 2017).
Differentiated patterns (some have a high turnout).
TYPES OF REFERENDA (1)
(Gallagher/Uleri)

(1) Procedural vs ad hoc referendum

(2) Optional or Mandatory

(3) Who promote the referendum

(4) Decision promoting vs. Veto

(5) Binding vs. Mandatory

 Differentiated
patterns
Switzerland as the land of direct
democracy
Switzerland • Different ways of allowing people to directly vote on policies.
• Inherently part of the democratic game (1800s onwards).
• Leininger and Heyne (2017)
 Pros and Cons
Are referenda good for democracy?
WDYT?
Populism: a difficult concept to
be analysed

• Concept analysis: not just describing what a

concept should be, but also setting the boundaries
between the extensional properties and the non-
observable or at least-observable properties.

Over-intention vs. Over-discrimination

Populism: a difficult concept to
be analysed

- Normativity: populism is associated with «what’s

wrong» in European polyarchies: illiberal politics,
protectionism, minority rights
- Use and conceptual stretching: in the current
debated any political phenomenon which is not
mainstream is considered populism
- Inductivism: since RRPs are “populist”, thus the
definition of populism has to deal with all the
features that those parties display
Populism: too much successful?

Biting a sour apple: countless definition with little

agreement on what populism. Important: a-normative

Countless definitions and countless approaches

to populism. All have merits and shortcoming.

Finding common denominators is a

complicated task, but there are still some
important characteristics that populist share
The first historical • Zemlja i Volja (“Land and Freedom”
movement)  Narodnaja Volja in Russia
“appearance” of (agrarian) (XIX Century)
populism: Russia • Narodnaja Volja: political revolution against
the Czarist monarchy through terrorist and
demonstrative actions
• Obščina principles, i.e. the self-organization
of the small farmers against the
“kulakization”. Anti-capitalist stances and
the socialist aspiration to represent the will
of the people, the desires of the people and
the ideas of the people.
• Killing of Czar Alexander II (1881)
The first historical • People’s Party of America (1891)
• Disentangle the Republican/Democratic
“appearance” of (agrarian) duopoly. In 1892 presidential elections, J.B.
populism: US Weaver gained more than one million votes;
Eugene Debs (Socialist Party of America –
1901)
• Ideology: redistribution of the wealth (income
tax);
• Land should not be monopolized for
speculative purposes;
• Public ownership of strategic assets
• No revolutionary claims;
• Direct democracy (referenda and the direct
elections of President, Vice-President and
Senators).
J.B. Weaver –
1833 – 1912
Populism in the contemporary • Populism: Its Meaning and National
Characteristics. Edited by Ghita Ionescu and
world Ernest Gellner. 1969. First seminal work.
• The conclusions of the author point to one
main finding…it is difficult to know what
populism is!
• “[a]s a doctrine or as a movement, it is
elusive and protean. It bobs up everywhere,
but in many and contradictory shapes”.
• Populism is everything…and nothing!

G. Ionescu –
1913 – 1996
Defining populism in the • Several definitions, one mainstream.
• Ideational approach as the most widely accepted, yet
contemporary political other still important (populism as discursive approach,
science as a mobilization tool, as a leader-led movement and so
on).

A thin-centered ideology that considers society to be

ultimately separated into two homogenous and
antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt
elite,’ and which argues that politics should be an
expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the
people” (Mudde 2004: 543, italics in the text).
Three features: thin-centered ideology, people-centrism
and anti-elitism (Manichean vision of the society).

C. Mudde –
1967
Populism and the • People: concept at the core of populist message. The “people” represent
what we are vs. who the enemy of the people (the others). Us vs. Other.
people. • People might assume different forms. According to Meny and Surel

How many (2000), mainly three.

1) People as sovereign (political conception)
definition of 2) People as a nation (cultural)
people? 3) People as class (economic)

- People as nation: right-wing populism/far-right populism

- People as class: left-wing populism/far-left populism
- People as sovereign: both left and right, related to the functioning of
democracy per se. People have to decide (direct democracy?)
Varieties of • Material dimension
WHAT: STATE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESOURCES.
populism: POLES: PRO-REDISTRIBUTION OR PRO-COMPETITIVENESS?
the dimensions • Political dimension
WHAT: PARTICIPATION IN THE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE
AVAILABILITY OF A SPACE FOR PUBLIC CONTESTATION.
POLES: EXCLUDING vs. INCLUDING MINORITIES (not just ethnical)
• Symbolic dimension
WHAT: THE BOUNDARIES SET FOR THE TERM ELITE.
POLES: BLURRED. FINANCIAL, CULTURAL, POLITICAL, ULTRA-
LEFT, ETHNIC
 DIMENSION
Varieties of Material Political Symbolic
populism:
TYPE

the TYPES. Exclusionary

Nationally/Ethnically-based
Including the member of
the nation, excluding
The “people” is composed of all members
of the nation (ethnicity). Whatever
undermines the purity of the ingroup is

Types and
pro-redistributive policies financial/political/ cultural
seen as a threat, i.e. minority groups,
elites and all minorities
religion, internal enemies

Dimension Pro-redistributive policies Inclusive of all minorities; The “people” is composed of all non-elite
with no distinction among the reducing the influence for group. Borderless and multicultural
Inclusionary non-elite groups profiting financial/ political/cultural conception of the “people”. The outgroup
from redistribution. elites is the richer and wealthier class

Reducing the power of the

Against pro-redistribution. elites which liberal The “people” is the hard-working people,
Neoliberal Fight against the structures populists oppose. Tend to regardless of their status. Lazy people
that block the free-market be less supportive of and leftist groups are the main outgroups.
inclusion of minorities
Inclusionary Main Dimensions Position

populism platform Economy Pro-redistribution

(and voters) European Union Soft/Hard Euroscepticism

Civil-rights Pro/culturally open
Immigration Liberal - Multiculturalism
Political institutions Scepticism
Economic institutions Hard scepticism
Environment Green
Globalization Anti-globalization (economic)
Education – Interest (voters) (usually) more educated / more
interested
Exclusionary Main Dimensions Position

populism platform Economy Blurring positions (mix of welfare

chauvinism and neoliberal
(and voters) positions)
European Union Hard Euroscepticism
Civil-rights Anti/Culturally close
Immigration Nativist /Islamophobia
Political institutions (Hard) Scepticism
Economic institutions Hard Scepticism (yet see above)
Environment ---
Globalization Anti-globalization (cultural)
Education – Interest (voters) (usually) less educated / less
interested
How widespread European populism is?
The PopuList
The electoral performance of European populist parties
 PRLPs whole dataset

PRRPs Southern Europe

PRRPs Northern Europe

The electoral
performance of
European populist PRRPs Central Europe
parties in different
European areas
PRRPs Eastern Europe

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

2010-2018 2001-2009 1991-2000

 Populist parties in government: is there a taboo?

1991-2000 2001-2009 2010-2018 1991-2018

Major Partner 2,3% 4,3% 18,8% 8,2%

Junior Partner 4,6% 8,5% 14,5% 9,1%

Major Partner + Junior
1,5% 6,0% 6,0% 4,4%
Partner
External Support 0,0% 7,7% 4,3% 3,8%
Populists out the government 91,5% 73,5% 56,4% 74,5%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

 Which are the most successful parties in Europe?
Name Area Genesis In Gvt Leader Type % last elect.
PiS Eastern EU 2001 2005-2007/
2015- Kaczyński PRRP 43.6%
Fidesz Eastern EU 1988* 1998-2002/
2010- Orban PRRP 49.2%
ANO2011 Eastern EU 2011 2013-
Babiš Neolib. P. 29.6%
PVV Western EU 2006 2010-2012
Wilders PRRP 10.8%
FPO Western EU 1956* 1999-2006/
2017-2019 Hofer PRRP 16.2%
SVP Western EU 1971 Chiesa PRRP 25.6%
Pim Fortuyn L. Southern EU 2002 2002-2003
Fortuyn PRRP Dissolved
Podemos Southern EU 2014 2018-
Iglesias PRLP 12.8%
SYRIZA Southern EU 2004 2015-2015
2015-2019 Tsipras PRLP 31.5%
M5S Southern EU 2009 2018-
Grillo ? 32.7%
FI Southern EU 1994 1994-96/2001-06
2008-11/2011-13 etc. Berlusconi Neolib. P. 14%
DPP (+FrP) Northern EU 1995 2001-2011
2015-2019 T. Dahl PRRP 8.7%
True Finns* Northern EU 1995 2015-2017
Halla-aho PRRP 17.5%
FrP Northern EU 1973 2013-2017
2017-2020 (various) Jensen PRRP 15.3%
Populism within political parties – CHES study
Belgium vs. The Netherlands
Populism within political parties – CHES study
Belgium vs. The Netherlands
Populism within political parties – CHES study
Belgium vs. The Netherlands
PATTERNS OF
DEMOCRACY
A review
Arend Lijphart, • PhD at Yale University

emeritus professor • Studies on

- consociationalism
- (consensus) democracy and party system
- methodology
• Most influential works:
Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus
Government in Twenty-one Countries.
Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms & Performance
in Thirty-six Countries
(2004). Constitutional design for divided societies. Journal of
Democracy, 15(2): 96–109.
(1971). Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.
The American Political Science Review, 653(3): 682-693.
Table of contents
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Westminster

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
1. Concentration of Power in one party and bare-majority cabinet, that is minimal-winning coalition
in case there is not single-party majority.
Was it always like this? Yes, since 1945 caretaker government (Churchill), 2010-2015 cons-lib
majority, 2017 Cons+Dup, 1974 Hang parliament
2. Cabinet dominance: the cabinet needs the vote of confidence, but the cabinet prevails in all
aspects of policy-making (yet, when the majority is not safe, Parliament increases its power)
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Westminster

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
3. Two party system Lib/Lab vs. Cons and usually one-dimensional conflict (left vs. right), Why?
Is it the same now? WDYT?
4. Majoritarian system, meaning FPTP electoral system, high disproportionality which penalizes the
third largest party.
Disproportionality // N. of Parties in Parliament
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Westminster

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
5. Interest group: pluralism. Not consociationalism, where main unions meet regularly with the GVT
to seek compromise on social policies.
6. Unitary government  do you remember from our class on federalism? What happened in 1997
in UK? Plus, Scottish referendum (first potential criticism to this ideal type).
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Westminster

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
7. Unicameralism (substantial). Only one chamber is relevant, the second chamber is only symbolic;
without substantial power
8. Constitutional flexibility: parliament can change the constitution without a review from an external
court (e.g. Constitutional Court) or without any other procedure (e.g. referendum in Italy)
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Westminster

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
9. (8.1) absence of judicial review for the constitution. No Constitutional Court (e.g. Brexit)
10. Central Bank controlled by the executive (not independent).
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Consensus

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
1. Power sharing in broad coalition government (oversized coalition government, but also minimal
winning coalition).
Belgium. Since 1970: French and Dutch representatives in coalition government.
De Croo GVT (7 parties), Wilmes I (3 parties), Michel I (3 parties), Di Rupo (6 parties)
2. Executive-legislative balance of power: linked to the vote of confidence of all parties belonging
to the coalition; more parties, more possibilities to defect.
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Consensus

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
3. Multi-party system with more than one conflict at the same time, e.g. centre-periphery and left vs.
right. Can you elaborate about Belgian case?
4. Proportional representation (sometimes with a low threshold, e.g. Netherlands)

Disproportionality // N. of Parties in Parliament

 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Consensus

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should remember)

5. Interest group: corporatism, where main unions meet regularly with the GVT to seek compromise on
social policies. Belgium is somewhat deviant from the ideal-type (represented by NED), because its
system is defined as liberal corporatism (business union predominant)
6. Federal government  again Belgium was somewhat deviant up until 1970, when it became more
decentralized (nowadays the centre-periphery cleavage is very strong).
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Consensus

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
7. Strong bicameralism. Senate in Belgium. WDYT? The strongest bicameral system is the one
called symmetric bicameralism, where the two chambers have the same legislative power and
give confidence to the GVT.
8. Constitutional rigidity: written constitution and supermajority needed to modify the constitution
(2/3 + French and Dutch majority to revise the constitution).
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Consensus

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember)
9. Judicial review: court of arbitration in Belgium in 1984. Example of strong (very strong)
Constitutional Court, Italy and Germany (critical power, especially when it come to EU law)
10. Central Bank independence. In Belgium since 1992 is more autonomous. After Euro, this issue is
no longer crucial.
 Westminster model of Democracy vs. Consensus Model.
Consensus

• 10 main features for each model of democracy. Ideal-types (but also real examples, you should
remember).
• Lijphart devotes one chapter to case-selection (methodological rigour in the selection of the cases,
very important).
• The 36 countries represented the three waves of democratization and different “openness” of the
society (plural, semi-plural, non-plural)…also population and GDP.
• He uses these examples to check which country adopts which model and then compare the results in
terms of democratic performance.
Democracy in 36 countries.
First wave: WWII
Second wave: decolon.
Third wave: recent democrat.
EU, N.A., L.A., Asia, Oce.
Democracy in 36 countries.
First wave: WWII
Second wave: decolon.
Third wave: recent democrat.
EU, N.A., L.A., Asia, Oce.
 Number of parties
Multi-party system vs. two-party
systems.

Do they reflect the EL?

 Conflict dimensions,
removed from the last
edition
 Cabinet: minimal
winning vs. coalition
cabinet

Do they reflect the EL and the NoP?

Yes, they do
 SYSTEMS
and
DOMINANCE
(coalition cabinet, more parties, more
possibilities to defect, short duration)
 Executive dominance
related with One-party
cabinet.
With some outliers
Majoritarian vs Proportial
electoral laws

Do they refle t the EL and the NoP?

 NOP and Electoral
disproportionality. Here is an
affinity, yet with outliers (+
some prop laws have maj.
effects
Number of parliamentary
parties related with the
pluralism of interest
groups
Federalism of the 36
democracies
Unicameralism vs.
Bicameralism
 Unicameralism vs.
Bicameralism
Yes, outiliers though
 Judicial review and
Constitutional Rigidity
How many dimensions?
TWO
1. Executive vs. parties
dominated systems and
2. Federal vs. Unitary
 Conceptual map of 36
democracies:
two axes
Canada (maj/fed) vs. Israel
(con/unit).
Ger (con/fed) vs. Uk (maj/unit)
So what?
Maj vs. Cons. Democracy.
Which is more effective?

•Conventional wisdom:
•Majoritarian more effective (faster, coherent, consistent)
in the policy-making (stable in the alternation, yet…)
•Proportional representation systems however are more
“centrist”, steady, even though government change…
better equipped than majoritarian. More inclusive, as well.
 MORE
EFFECTIVE
ECONOMY
The higher the value (more
consensual) the higher the
control of corruption, RoL,
lower consumer price
 MORE
EFFECTIVE
The higher the value (more
ECONOMY
consensual) the higher the
stability, the lower the
domestic conflicts
 GENTLER,
KINDER
The higher the value (more
consensual) the higher
inclusiveness, participation
and CL
 GENTLER,
KINDER
The higher the value (more
consensual) the more equal
and with more satisfied
citizens
 SEVERAL
CRITICISMS TO THE
METHODS
TOO FEW CASES, RESULTS DRIVEN BY
SOME COUNTRIES ONLY?