Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to draw conclusions about the power of the Russian Parliament and President in the legislative process from 1994 to 1999. Conclusions about the type of political system in Russia will be discussed along with trends in executive—legislative relations. These findings will be applied to theories of democratic transition and consolidation to determine whether favorable conditions and institutions exist for democratic stability in Russia. Suggestions are, then, provided for further work in this subject area.
When legislative power is united with executive power in a single person or in a single body of the magistracy, there is no liberty, because one can fear that the same ruler or senate that makes tyrannical laws will execute them tyrannically … The representative body should not be chosen in order to make some resolution for action, a thing it would not do well, but in order to make laws or in order to see if those they have made have been well executed; these are things it can do very well and that only it can do well … The two (chambers of the legislature) should be bound by the executive power, which should itself be bound by the legislative power.
Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
On the debate about the adaptability of the concepts of democratic transition and consolidation to non-Western settings see, for example, Guillermo O’Donnell, who argues that democratic consolidation cannot be adapted to non-European countries in ‘Illusions about Consolidation’, Journal of Democracy 7, 2 (April 1996): 34–51. Richard Gunther, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros and Hans-Jurgen Puhle offer a critique of O’Donnell’s article in ‘O’Donnell’s “Illusions”: A Rejoinder’, Journal of Democracy 7, 4 (October 1996). See also Larry Diamond, Juan Linz, and Seymour Lipset, Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995), and Scott Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell and J. Samuel Valenzuela (eds), Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992).
See Nicolai Petro, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995).
Peter Reddaway, ‘Instability and Fragmentation’, Journal of Democracy 5, 2 (April 1994): 13. This article is one of several which formed part of a symposium in this issue of the Journal of Democracy and similar views to Reddaway’s are echoed by the other authors. I, however, believe that this is because the issue of the journal was published soon after the 1993 conflict. In the uncertainties and climate of the time their pessimistic views (see pp. 13, 19, 27 especially) are understandable, although I do not agree with them. Of these authors, Reddaway still remains as pessimistic as ever, as shown by his comments in an artide co-authored with Dmitri Glinski, ‘The Yeltsin Era in the Light of Russian History: Reform or Reaction?’, Demokratizatsiya 6 (1998): 518–34 and in his co-authored book with Glinski, The Tragedy of Russia’s Reforms: Market Bolsherism against Democracy (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001). An even bleaker view is held by Stephen Cohen in ‘Russian Studies without Russia’, Post-Soviet Affairs 15 (1999): 37–55; and Cohen, Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia (New York: W.W. Norton, 2000).
Thomas Remington (ed), Parliaments in Transition: The New Legislative Politics in the Former USSR and Eastern Europe (Oxford: Westview Press, 1994), 21, 23. See also Evgeni Tanchev, ‘Parliamentarism Rationalized’, East European Constitutional Review 2, 1 (Winter 1993): 33–5.
See Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skach, ‘Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism’, World Politics 46, 1 (October 1993): 1–22. Adam Przeworski and Mike Alvarez, ‘Parliamentarism and Presidentialism: Which Works? Which Lasts? (Lublin: Polish Sociological Association Congress, 27–30 June 1994). Edward Walker, in ‘Politics of Blame and Presidential Powers in Russia’s New Constitution’, East European Constitutional Review 2/3, 4/1 (Fall 1993/Winter 1994): 119, thinks that because power in Russia is concentrated in the presidency it will also mean a decline in support for the president and democracy, and thus, democratic consolidation will be more problematic.
Juan Linz, ‘Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does it Make a Difference?’ in Juan Linz and Arturo Valenzuela (eds), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspectives I and II (Balitmore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 3–87.
See Donald Horowitz, ‘Comparing Democratic Systems’, Journal of Democracy 1 (1990): 73–9. See also Matthew Shugart and John Carey, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1995). Gerald Easter applies these findings to Russia to determine how presidentialism affects democracy in the NIS (‘Preference for Presidentialism: Postcommunist Regime Change in Russia and the NIS’, World Politics 49, 2 (1997): 184–211).
Scott Mainwaring, ‘Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination’, Comparative Political Studies 26, 2 (July 1993): 198–228.
Stephen Holmes, ‘Superpresidentialism and its Problems’, East European Constitutional Review 2, 4 (Fall 1993/Winter 1994): 123–6. See Philip Roeder, ‘Varieties of Post-Soviet Authoritarian Regimes’, Comparative Politics (1995), on how semi-presidential systems can become authoritarian and superpresidential systems in CIS countries. See also Ray Taras (ed), Post-Communist Presidents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
David Lane, Russia in Transition: Politics, Privatization, and Inequality (London: Longman, 1995). For others who have held this view see, for example, n. 6 in Ch. 1 of this study.
See Giovanni Sartori, Neither Presidentialism nor Parliamentarism’, in Linz and Valenzuela (eds), The Failure of Presidential Democracy, 106–88, for an analysis of why semi-presidential or semi-parliamentary are more conducive to democratic consolidation than presidential or parliamentary systems. According to Sartori, ‘semipresidentialism can improve presidentialism and, similarly, (that) semiparliamentary systems are better than plain parliamentary ones’, 110. On the adaptability of the semi-presidential system of the French Fifth Republic to non-Western countries, see Alfred Stepan and Ezra Suleiman, The French Fifth Republic: A Model for Import? Reflections on Poland and Brazil’, in H.E. Chehabi and Alfred Stepan (eds), Politics, Society and Democracy: Comparative Studies (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995): 393–414.
Guillermo O’Donnell, ‘Delegative Democracy’, Journal of Democracy 5, 1 Uanuary 1994): 55–69.
John Lowenhardt, The Reincarnation of Russia: Struggling with the Legacy of Communism, 1990–1994 (Harlow: Longman House, 1995), 25. Regina Smyth also states that a parliament ‘may well be an essential element of a Russian democracy. The development of a stable legislature within a system of checks and balances on the other branches of government could be a strong force in the consolidation of democracy by channeling conflict and fostering compromise’ in Douglas Blum, Russia’s Future: Consolidation or Disintegration? (Oxford: Westview Press, 1994), 41.
Copyright information
© 2003 Tiffany A. Troxel
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Troxel, T.A. (2003). Conclusions: Parliamentary Power and the Democratic Transition and Consolidation Process in Russia. In: Parliamentary Power in Russia, 1994–2001. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505735_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505735_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43175-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50573-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)