Abstract
Many countries since 1990 have adopted semi-presidential constitutions, which are often considered to be problematic, primarily because of the potential for conflict between the assembly-supported government and the popularly elected president. Such conflicts are said to lead to unstable governments, policy paralysis and the eventual undermining of the democratic regime. Using data for all parliamentary and semi-presidential democracies between 1946 and 2006, we examine the effect of semi-presidential constitutions on the duration of prime ministers’ tenure in office, government accountability with respect to economic outcomes, and democratic survival. We also examine (for a smaller sample of post-communist countries) the impact of these constitutions on the progress of structural reforms. We find that the observed higher instability of prime ministers in semi-presidential democracies is more due to the electoral system than to the presence of a popularly elected president. We also find that semi-presidential constitutions have little impact on the government’s accountability to economic outcomes and on the survival of democratic regimes. Finally, we find that neither a weak president nor a weak government is optimal for the progress of economic reforms in post-communist countries. Regarding economic reforms, the optimal allocation of constitutional powers between the president and the government grants both significant powers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Austria’s 1920 constitution, reintroduced in 1945, was also mixed in the sense used here. However, until 1955 the country was governed by the Allied Commission for Austria and hence does not appear as an independent country in our data set.
The number of democracies with mixed constitutions (henceforth also referred to as mixed or semi-presidential democracies) increased to seventeen in 1991 with the addition of Lithuania, Macedonia, Russia, São Tomé e Príncipe, Slovenia and Ukraine. Other democracies with mixed constitutions include Cape Verde, Republic of Congo, Mali and Mongolia (1992), Central African Republic, Madagascar and Niger (1993), Haiti (1994), Armenia (1995), Moldova (1996), Taiwan (1997), Slovak Republic (1999), and Croatia and Senegal (2002).
Sartori (1994) is one of few who actually praises mixed constitutions.
This statement must be qualified. Even in constitutions that stipulate the highest degree of separation between the government and the assembly, the president may be impeached and removed from office for criminal or some other kind of illicit activities. This, however, does not imply assembly responsibility of the government since the criterion for removal is not simply the loss of confidence of the majority. Whether impeachment provisions may evolve to become assembly responsibility is an interesting question, which arises in view of impeachments in the United States, Ecuador, and Venezuela, among others presidential countries. See Hinojosa and Pérez-Liñán (2002) for an analysis of impeachment in the Americas.
There are several other events that could serve as the basis for measures of government stability: changes in the party of the head of government, changes in the partisan composition of the government (which could, in turn, consider all or only changes in the major party) or ministerial turnover. For reasons of both data availability and space, we leave the treatment of these variables for future work.
This is the reason why we believe that selection bias is not a problem in this data. It would have been if the same factors that led countries to choose non-majoritarian electoral systems were also leading them to choose mixed constitutions. As we argue, we believe there is much less “choice” involved in the adoption of these institutions (it is interesting to note that the only democracies that adopted a pure presidential constitution after 1990 are the ones that already had one in the past). But even if this were not the case, the vast majority of new democracies chose semi-presidentialism and non-majoritarian electoral systems. One would be at a loss to generate a story that would account for these choices in all of these cases.
Survival models yield substantively similar results, as they should given democratic survival exhibits no time dependency (Przeworski et al. 2000).
Elster (1997), pp. 226–228) makes a similar point in his discussion of presidential power indices.
This last power has been found to have an important impact on the budget balances of presidential democracies and other systems.
Drastic economic reforms usually entail social and economic costs such as decline in output and unemployment in the short run which makes them unpopular among the population (Bunce 2001; Nello 2001; Haggard and Web 1993). Promise of EU membership can shield policy-makers from popular discontent and help justify unpopular economic policies. Finally, it can tie hand of policy makers in their actions in the area of economic reforms thus it helps to outnumber the domestic opposition, reduce the intra-party conflict and make policy-making more efficient.
According to Kristinsson (1999, p. 86), “it is customary in Iceland to regard the form of government as a parliamentary one, essentially similar to the Danish one, despite the different ways heads of states come into office.”
References
Alt, J. E., & Lassen, D. D. (2006). Transparency, political polarization, and political budget cycles in OECD countries. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 530–550.
Amorim Neto, O., & Strom, K. (2006). Breaking the parliamentary chain of delegation: Presidents and non-partisan cabinet members in European democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 619–643.
Baylis, T. (1996). Presidents versus prime ministers: Shaping executive authority in Eastern Europe. World Politics, 48(3), 297–323.
Bergman, T., Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (2000). Parliamentary democracy and the chain of delegation. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 255–260.
Brender, A., & Drazen, A. (2005). Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(7), 1271–1295.
Bunce, V. (2001). Democratization and economic reform. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 43–65.
Cheibub, J. A., & Chernykh, S. (2008). Constitutions and democratic performance in semi-presidential democracy. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 9(3), 269–303.
Cheibub, J. A., & Gandhi, J. (2006). Classifying political regimes: A six-fold classification of democracies and dictatorships. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/Emory University.
Cheibub, J. A., & Przeworski, A. (1999). Democracy, elections, and accountability for economic outcomes. In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy and Accountability (pp. 222–250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, G. (1997). Making votes count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diermeier, D., & Feddersen, T. (1998). Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. American Political Science Review, 92, 611–622.
Dodd, L. (1974). Party coalitions in multiparty parliamentary: A game-theoretical analysis. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 1093–1117.
Duverger, M. (1980). A new political system model: Semi-presidential government. European Journal of Political Research, 8(2), 166–187.
Elgie, R. (Ed.). (1999). The politics of semi-presidentialism. Semi-presidentialism in Europe (pp. 1–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elgie, R. (2004). Semi-presidentialism: Concepts, consequences, and contested explanations. Political Studies Review, 2, 313–330.
Elster, J. (1997). Afterword: The making of postcommunist presidencies. In R. Taras (Ed.), Postcommunist presidents. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
Fish, S. (1998). The determinants of economic reform in the post-communist world. East European Politics and Society, 12(1), 31–78.
Frye, T. (1997). Politics of institutional choice: Post-communist presidencies. Comparative Political Studies, 30(5), 523–553.
Ginsburg, T. (2006). Constitutional choices in Taiwan: Implications of global trends. Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 06-01.
Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. (1995). The political economy of democratic transitions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Haggard, S., & Web, S. B. (1993). What do we know about the political economy of economic policy reform? The World Bank Research Observer, 8(2), 143–168.
Hellman, J. (1996). Constitutions and economic reform in the postcommunist transitions. East European Constitutional Review, 5, 46–53.
Hinojosa, V., & Pérez-Liñán, A. (2002, April 25–28). Presidential survival and the impeachment process: Colombia in comparative perspective. Prepared for presentation at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Holmes, S. (1993/1994). A forum of presidential powers: The Postcommunist presidency. East European Constitutional Review, 2(4), 3(1), 36–40.
Huber, J. D. (1996a). Rationalizing parliament. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huber, J. D. (1996b). The vote of confidence in parliamentary democracies. American Political Science Review, 90, 269–282.
Jasiewicz, K. (1997). Poland: Wałęsa’s legacy to the presidency. In R. Taras (Ed.), Postcommunist presidents (pp. 130–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalandrakis, A. (2000). General equilibrium parliamentary government. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kitschelt, H., & Malesky, E. (2000, April 28). Constitutional design and postcommunist economic reform. Prepared for presentation at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Kristinsson, G. H. (1999). Iceland. In R. Elgie (Ed.), Semi-presidentialism in Europe (pp. 86–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laver, M. (2002). Government termination. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 23–40.
Laver, M., & Schofield, N. (1998). Multiparty government: The politics of coalition in Europe. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mainwaring, S., & Shugart, M. S. (1997). Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mainwaring, S., & Zoco, E. (2007). Political sequences and the stabilization of interparty competition: Electoral volatility in old and new democracies. Party Politics, 13, 155–178.
Mershon, C. (1996). The costs of coalition: Coalition theories and Italian governments. American Political Science Review, 90(3), 534–554.
Metcalf, L. K. (2000). Measuring presidential power. Comparative Political Studies, 33(5), 660–685.
Nello, S. (2001). The impact of external economic factors: The role of the IMF. In: J. Zielonka & A. Pravda (Eds.), Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe: International and transnational factors (pp. 76–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Nelson, J. (1990). Economic crisis and policy choice: The politics of adjustment in the third world. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
O’Neil, P. (1993). Presidential power in post-communist Europe: The Hungarian case in comparative perspective. Journal of Communist Studies, 9(3), 177–201.
Osiatynski, W. (1997). The roundtable talks in Poland. In J. Elster (Ed.), The roundtable talks and the breakdown of communism (pp. 21–68). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Powell, G. B., & Whitten, G. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391–414.
Protsyk, O. (2006). Intra-executive competition between president and prime minister: Patterns of institutional conflict and cooperation under semi-presidentialism. Political Studies, 56(2), 219–244.
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pugačiauskas, V. (1999). Semi-presidential institutional models and democratic stability: Comparative analysis of Lithuania and Poland. Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook, 1–26.
Roberts, K. M., & Wibbels, E. (1999). Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: A test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 575–590.
Roper, S. D. (2002). Are all semipresidential regimes the same? A comparison of premier-presidential regimes. Comparative Politics, 34(3), 253–272.
Samuels, D. (2004). Presidentialism and accountability for the economy in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 425–436.
Samuels, D., & Hellwig, T. (2007). Electoral accountability and the variety of democratic regimes. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 1–26.
Sartori, G. (1994). Comparative constitutional engineering: An inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes. New York: New York University Press.
Schleiter, P. (2003). Mixed constitutions and political instability. Democratization, 10(1), 1–26.
Shugart, M. S., & Carey, J. M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skach, C. (2005). Borrowing constitutional designs: Constitutional law in Weimar Germany and the French fifth republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tavits, M. (2005). The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-communist Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 283–298.
Warwick, P. (1994). Government survival in parliamentary democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheibub, J.A., Chernykh, S. Are semi-presidential constitutions bad for democratic performance?. Const Polit Econ 20, 202–229 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9072-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9072-2