More legitimation = more competence? Heads of state in parliamentary systems in comparative perspective
- PDF / 384,125 Bytes
- 20 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 89 Downloads / 177 Views
More legitimation = more competence? Heads of state in parliamentary systems in comparative perspective Gerd Strohmeier
Abstract: The former German Federal President Horst Köhler stimulated a debate on the direct election of the German head of state. However, a vast political majority rejected the President’s proposal by arguing that a more solid foundation of legitimacy would require more presidential powers. The article touches on the issue of whether this theoretically derived or normatively justified correlation can be substantiated empirically: Is there, or in how far is there a positive relationship between the foundation of legitimacy and the powers of the heads of state in parliamentary systems? The article provides a comparative analysis of the heads of state in all parliamentary systems in the European Union. It concludes that the supposed correlation exists in some instances. Keywords: Head of state · Legitimation · Competence · Parliamentary system
Published online: 31.10.2012 © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2012 Prof. Dr. G. Strohmeier () TU Chemnitz, Thüringer Weg 9, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany e-mail: [email protected]
178
G. Strohmeier
1 Introduction “I believe that it would not be a bad thing if the Federal President were elected directly”, stated Germany’s then Federal President Horst Köhler on June 24th, 2007 on the German political talk show “Sabine Christiansen” (Weiland and Fischer 2007). A wide political majority either rejected Köhler’s proposal, or politely ignored it. His successor Christian Wulff rejected the suggestion “as this would give citizens the impression that the Federal President had substantial administrative power and influence, which the constitution does not give him” (Weiland and Fischer 2007). Hubertus Heil, General Secretary of the SPD, justified his rejection by saying that “the balance of power between Federal Chancellor and Federal President must not be altered” (Die ZEIT 25.05.2009). Various sides indicated that strengthening the foundation of legitimacy of the head of state would have to accompany granting him or her wider powers (FAZ 25.06.2007). This relationship can be deduced theoretically, and justified normatively. However, can it also stand the test of an empirical verification in an international comparison? Do heads of state who receive their legitimacy by popular mandate in parliamentary systems of government have more political powers than those legitimized indirectly and democratically, and do they in turn have more political powers than heads of state legitimized dynastically? Can there generally be said to exist a positive relationship between the foundation of legitimacy and the powers of heads of state in parliamentary systems? Political science research has cast little light upon the investigation of this relationship (Tavits 2009, p. 7). Frequently, political science simply sets as a pre-condition—as seen in politics and the mass media—a positive relationship between the foundation of legitimacy and the powers of heads of st
Data Loading...
