Suchergebnisse

Those writing textbooks on comparative European politics, or the cross-national study of European democracies, have a number of key choices to make. They must decide whether to cover Western Europe as well as Central and Eastern Europe; whether to focus on a limited number or a broad range of countries; whether to include the EU in the analysis or exclude it; whether to adopt a thematic or a country-by-country approach; whether to survey events or test a broader argument; and whether to focus on the politics of institutions and representation or to include more social and economic-oriented concerns as well. The evidence from the most recently published texts in this area is that different writers make different choices. Moreover, the context within which European politics now operates also suggests that their choices are becoming increasingly difficult ones to make. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)

This article examines the classification of regime types. It shows that most writers classify regime types with reference to both their dispositional properties (whether there is a president and/or a prime minister, whether or not they are popularly elected and whether or not they serve for a fixed term) and their relational properties (the actual patterns of executive politics in the political system). It is argued that this juxtaposition of dispositional and relational properties creates a conceptual ambiguity. As a result, it is concluded that classifications of regime types should be made on the basis of either dispositional or relational properties but not both together. It then shows that writers who classify regime types with reference to relational properties are likely to make highly contestable assumptions about how power is actually exercised. This is because the question of where executive power lies in a particular country is often subject to not just one incontestable interpretation but to a number of contestable and mutually exclusive interpretations. This point is illustrated by examining the case of the Fifth French Republic. Therefore, it is concluded that the classification of regime types should be made with reference to dispositional properties alone. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)

IN FRANCE SINCE 1958, IT IS POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP: PURE PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT, LIMITED PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT, AND PRIME MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT. THESE THREE LEADERSHIP TYPES ARE THE RESULT OF THE SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE FIFTH REPUBLIC. UNDER EACH OF THE THREE DIFFERENT FORMS OF LEADERSHIP, THE ROLE OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE HAS CHANGED. FOLLOWING A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE TWO COMPONENTS OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE, HIS CABINET AND THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE CHANGES WHICH THE OFFICE HAS UNDERGONE ARE IDENTIFIED. WHILE THE ROLE OF BOTH OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE OFFICE VARIED ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, BECAUSE OF ITS DISTINCTIVE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS, THE ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER'S CABINET HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF VARIATION.

The constitution indicates that the PM should play the key leadership role as head of the government. But for all but the 1966-68 cohabitation, the President has assumed this role. Examines the constitutional positions and media images of both. Assesses the resources at the disposal of the PM, the President and ministers. (SJK)