Discussion Question 2: Sweden

     The Swedish Constitution that we know and converse about today just came to fruition in 1974 (1). But its origin came about during a time of relative confusion and chaos in Sweden’s history. At this time Sweden was a warring nation with a volatile war-minded leader in Gustav Adolph. It is hard to determine exactly how society was such a long time ago, but we do know that he constructed an autocratic society composed of hierarchical classes with unequal representation in government. This, along with the horrid and unsafe living conditions due to war and lack of attention to pubic issues, led the Riksdag of the Estates (the loose assembly of representatives of the different regions within Sweden in the early 19^th century) to decide to meet and discuss the major problems and potential solutions (2). This meeting was comprised of people and ideas from all over Sweden, elected by (and expected to represent) their respective regions/class. A few of the main issues at hand were the excessive power granted to the king, misrepresentation due to dysfunctional government, and personal liberties being infringed upon. Gustav IV Adolf was the monarch at this time but his tenacious military mindset and his consistent lack of concern for the average citizen led him to be replaced by Charles XIII. At the conclusion of the meeting of the estates and these local representatives, Charles XIII would rule with power. That power, however, was reduced once the potential adverse effects of having such powers came to fruition. The conclusion, in writing out this early constitution, was to give more power to the people.

Discussion Question 2: South Africa

Lauren Gallagher

The process for creating the South African Constitution of 1996 began in 1991 (1). Though the history of South African Constitutionalism is marred with racial segregation, rule by elites, and post Colonial mentalities, the drafting of the 1996 Constitution ultimately can be deemed pluralist.

Discussion Question 2 France

Jackie WONG, Siu Hei

This post aims to first argue the Fifth Republic of France’s constitution-writing process (1958) was elitist n which De Gaulle in 1958 played a dominant role in the Fifth Republic’s constitution-writing process; then to lay out how this constitution-writing was being ratified; and finally to examine how this evolution has transformed the constitution of France into a higher extent of majoritarian model both at the executive and legislative level. 

Discussion question 2 Brazil

Zach Determan

The current Brazilian constitution, founded in 1988, was founded as a ‘peoples’ constitution’, following decades of military authoritarian rule.¹  This constitution itself was drafted by an assembly organized for the sole purpose of creating a new constitution, the 559 member Assembléia Nacional Constituinte (ANC). Divided into 8 committees and 24 sub-committees, the ANC finally produced their constitution after 20 months and two rounds of voting.

Discussion 2: Canada

Elmer van der Vlugt

Canada’s constitution consists of many different parts that were added at different times in the nation’s history (1). To assess the degree of pluralism in the writing of the constitution, I will focus on the Constitution Act of 1982, because it provides the Canadian nation with the full freedom to rule itself, no longer relying on the British parliament to change its constitution and thus cutting all colonial ties. This process of obtaining this power is known in Canada as patriation (1, 2). In this sense, it is the first time the Canadian political community independently decides what its constitution should look like.

Discussion 2: Argentina

Christopher Smith

            The creation of the Argentine Constitution began in 1853 when a Constitutional Assembly wrote the first version of the Constitution in Santa Fe (1). From there the Constitution was reformed in 1860, 1866, 1898, 1949, 1957, and the most current version of the Constitution is the reformed text of 1994 (2). The 1853 version of the Argentine Constitution was forced into formation when Juan Manuel de Rosas was defeated in 1852, and the Treaty of San Nicolas required the creation of an effective federal Constitution via a Constitutional Congress (3). In response, the Province of Buenos Aires left the Argentine Confederation.

Discussion Question 2: Spain

Daniel Medendorp
The end of Franco’s regime came with the coronation of Juan Carlos de Borbón as King of Spain. His appointment by Franco, intended to be a continuation of his fascist regime, put in place a democratization process that would culminate with the passage of the 1978 Constitution (1). The constitution-writing process was largely inclusive, composed of a seven-member committee including three members of the ruling centre-right reformist UCD coalition, a Francoist, a Communist, a Social Democrat and a Catalonian nationalist whose intention was to represent both the Basques and the Catalonians nationalist interests (1). The spectrum of political beliefs was wide (far-left with Communist, nationalist interests, far-right with Francoist), demonstrating the pluralistic nature of the constitution-writing process.

Discussion Question 2-Russia

Patricia Hrit

            In last week's blog posts there was some debate amongst us over the majoritarian versus consensual nature of the Russian constitution. After researching the nature of how the constitution was drafted, it’s no wonder we all saw majoritarian undertones to the mostly consensual institutions the document outlines.

Discussion Question 2: Italy

Haleigh Bavol

                The current Italian Republic constitution began its construction in the year 1943 and became an effective law on January 1, 1948, (1). The process in which the constitution was created appeared to be a fair and proportionately representative method and widely included the voice of the people by holding special elections in order to make decisions. This method of creating a constitution for the state was performed in a very egalitarian and pluralistic approach by organizing a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, this equal opportunity constitutional writing process greatly reflects the consensual structure of the constitution.

Discussion Question 2

Hi everybody,

Here's the second online discussion question.  As before, the leader posts are due on Friday at 12PM, and everybody else's comments should be submitted by Monday 9AM.

Question 2: “How pluralistic was the constitution-writing process?  Who had the most influence?  How did their preferences affect the overall majoritarian vs. consensual structure of the constitution?”

"Pluralistic" in this sense refers to the inclusiveness of the constitution-writing process.  Was participation or input limited to social and political elites, or was a cross-section of interests included?  To get at this question, please incorporate two factors into your answer:

1. Venue of constitution-writing.  For example, the legislature (which may only represent existing elites), or a constitutional convention (which explicitly includes all regions or social groups).
2. Method of ratification.  Did it involve popular assent (e.g. referendum), foreign imposition (e.g. an occupying power), elite negotiations (legislative vote), etc..

Two quick logistical issues.  First, please remember to write your name on posts and comments, to make it easier for us to identify who wrote what.  Second, please use "jump breaks" on leader posts after the first paragraph.

KMM

Discussion Question 1: Canada

Elizabeth Caldwell

The preamble of the Canadian constitution lays out the goals to be independent underneath the mantle of the Monarch of the United Kingdom and to base their constitution after the constitution of the UK. The preamble further entails their desire that such a union would better the provinces of Canada and promote the interests of the British Empire including the expansion of Canada.

Discussion Questions 1, France

Charlene Zhang

The institutions identified in the Constitution of France are showing both features of majoritarian and consensual model, with more emphasis on majoritarian characteristics in the early period of the constitution of French Fifty Republic. The Preamble of its constitution claims the adherence to the fundamental rights such as freedom and liberty of man mentioned in declaration of 1789, and it also affirms a series of property rights and French Union in the Constitution of France in 1946. From this Preamble, the general unification of the republic makes its majoritarian features more noticeable.

The executive section of the constitution of France is largely majoritarian. The new constitution strengthens the executive of president’s power at the expense of parliament, and therefore affirming the privileges of the president and showing one of the prototypes of majoritarian model—the concentration of executive power. However, one may argue that the French Parliament is having a bicameral legislative of the republics, having both the Senate and the National Assembly, therefore denoting an important feature of consensual model. I argue that even though there exists the bicameralism in government authority, the asymmetry between two houses makes the national assembly have more power. Therefore, in this sense, France is keeping to a majoritarian model because the house of the National Assembly has been granted a monopoly of power.

From the analysis of electoral system in France, I argue that France is denoting more features of the consensus model. According to Lijphart in Patterns of Democracy, France has a proportional representation (Lijphart, 133), which signifies its consensual characteristic. Also, article 6 of the constitution of France specifies that the President of the Republic will elected by direct universal suffrage, representing both majority and minority groups. Even though the president was initially elected by an electoral college, but in 1962 de Gaulle was proposing that the president be directly elected by the citizens, and this marked the actual moment of implementing propositional representation.

With the regards to division of power, France is leaning towards to the majoritarian model. According to Lihphart, France is categorized into a “unitary and centralized” government, which is similar to that of United Kingdom (178). The unitary and centralized government wields much political power and affirms the overriding significance of central sovereignty. As it is mentioned in the executive section, the asymmetric bicameralism in French constitution is thus centralizing more power to the executive branch. 

In conclusion, the institutions of French constitution are in between majoritarian and consensual model, but with more emphasis on majoritarian characteristics. In the Title II of constitution, the presidential powers are listed in detail. With the President’s power of appointing the Prime Minister and terminating the Prime Minister, the executive branch seems to be largely dominated by the President. This resonates with the fundamental feature that Lijphart brings up that France is a unified and centralized government, and it in this sense following the majoritarian model. Yet, at the same time, the significant element of consensual model is identified in French constitution—propositional representation, making it perfect for a diverse group of people.

Works Cited

Lijphart, Arend. Pattern of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press, 2012. Print.

Constitution of France 1958 (rev, 2008). https://www.constituteproject.org/search#?q=France&cons_id=France_2008

Discussion Question 1: Spain

Haley Monaghan

The Spanish Constitution of 1978 was born out of the death the authoritarian leader, General Francisco Franco. His successor, Juan Carlos de Borbón, paved the way to democracy when he appointed Adolfo Suárez as the new prime minister. Under the Suárez government, political reform began in the shape of drafting a new constitution. This constitution may not have been formed from a revolution; however, the preamble seems to focus on restraining authority and allowing all to participate in government. 

Discussion 1: Italy

Daniel Mulhall

            The Constitution of Italy was first enacted in 1947, following the end of World War II and fall of fascism in the nation. Unconventionally, the constitution does not contain a preamble, which customarily contains the constitution’s ideals and goals. This does not affect the overall framework of the constitution, but does create some ambiguity as to how the constitution intends to specify its institutions. However, through examination of the constitution, with a focus on the articles regarding executive structure, the electoral system, and federalism, it is apparent that the Italian Constitution generally specifies consensual institutions.

Discussion Question 1: South Africa

Nicholas Hazen

The institutions specified in the Constitution of South Africa are largely consensual/consociational, albeit with an executive structure tending towards majoritarian. In its Preamble, the Constitution of South Africa states its commitment to a pluralistic and representative government. (1) These goals are reflected in South Africa's principles of Federalism and proportionally representative elections, institutions specified as consensual by Arend Lijphart in Patterns of Democracy (2), As Lijphart explains in Chapter 3 of Patterns of Democracy, highly pluralistic societies require more consensus-based institutions than do homogenous societies in order to ensure that minorities are not systematically denied access to political representation (3). Given its high degree of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity (6) South Africa is considered a highly pluralistic society, and its institutions are in general aptly consociational.

Discussion Question 1: Sweden

  Daniel McCarthy

            The Swedish Constitution begins with a clear and detailed preamble. The preamble begins with, “All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people” (1). The preamble continues to focus on “equal worth of all,” regardless of external factors such religion, sexual orientation, or race (2).  The preamble continues to describe the fundamental rights of all citizens, ranging from freedom of opinion to worship. Overall, the preamble focuses on all people and their equality. Through a mainly consensual institution, the majority of the Swedish constitution reflects the goals and ideals of the preamble.

Discussion Question 1: Russia

Celia Kaechele

 The constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted in 1993. Taking the document as a whole into consideration, the constitution is primarily consensual despite the fact that the preamble may appear to have some majoritarian undertones. While institutions are not explicitly mentioned in the preamble, the short section (only just under 120 words) focuses its attention on the states desire for unity and democracy as well as unfailing support for human rights. A states desire for increased unity suggests a majoritarian foundation for the constitution; however, the institutions are laid out in a very consensual way. While the preamble may hint at majoritarian policy it is ultimately relatively vague in outlining or foreshadowing any of the policies the constitution intends to put into effect.

Germany: Discussion Question 1

Shealyn Nosal

            Lijphart defines consensual democracies as having coalition cabinets, an executive/legislative balance of power, multiparty system, proportional representation, interest group corporatism, decentralized government structures, strong bicameralism, constitutional rigidity, judicial review, and central bank independence (1). Germany demonstrates this view of consensual democracy almost perfectly in the German Basic Law.

Discussion 1: Argentina

To classify Argentina as a majoritarian or consensual institution, it is necessary to identify certain characteristics presented by Lijphart in his book, Patterns of Democracy. Specifically, it is important to focus on the electoral system, the executive and federalism. A thorough examination of the Argentine constitution indicates a governmental structure modeled on primarily consensual institutions with a contradicting infusion of majoritarian principle.

First and foremost, the Argentine constitution implies in the preamble the establishment of a federal government, stating the keyword “provinces (1). Government power is distributed in Argentina between the national state and 23 provinces (and an autonomous city, Buenos Aires) (2). Although the national state is delegated a number of powers and responsibilities in the constitution, the provinces that compose Argentina still maintain a considerable level of autonomy. Article 5 of the Argentine constitution details this autonomy, stating “Each Province shall adopt for itself a constitution under the republican, representative system, in accordance with the principles, declarations, and guarantees of the National Constitution, ensuring its administration of justice, municipal government, and elementary education. Under these conditions, the Federal Government guarantees to each Province the enjoyment and exercise of its institutions (1). While federalism is a major component of Lijphart’s consensual model (3), the executive structure presented in the Argentine constitution is quite contradictory of traditional consensual characteristics. Section II is devoted to the outlining of the executive. The composition of the executive includes both the President and the Vice President of Argentina. The President is the head of state and the head of the government. The president is elected via a two-round system by which the winning President-Vice President ticket has to receive either more than 45% of the overall votes, or at least 40% of it and a 10% lead over the runner-up (1). If the situation demands it, the two leading tickets faceoff in a second round whose victor will be determined by a simple majority. The contradiction to the consensual model is the “laundry list” of powers delegated to the President, an inclusion in the constitution that exudes majoritarian sentiments. In a typical consensual institution, the power of the executive is limited by a system of checks and balances, a system that simply does not exist in the Argentine constitution. While the President of Argentina is the supreme leader of the nation, the second-tier of power is regionally distributed. 

The remaining features of the Argentine constitution embody Lijphart’s consensual model. Other central characteristics of the consensual model are a multiparty system, bicameralism, minority representation and .  Article 38 of the Argentine constitution reveals the multiparty system of Argentina, stating, “Political parties are fundamental institutions of the democratic system. Their creation and the exercise of their activities are free, so long as they respect this Constitution, which [hereby] guarantees their democratic organization and operation, the representation of minorities [within the party], the authority [of parties] to nominate candidates to elected public office, access to public information and the dissemination of their ideas” (1). Article 44 describes the formation of a bicameral legislature, stating, “A Congress consisting of two Chambers, one of Deputies of the Nation and the other of Senators of the Provinces and of the City of Buenos Aires, will be vested with the Legislative Power of the Nation." Article 45 outlines the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies has 257 seats and one-half of the representatives are elected every two years to serve four-year terms using proportional representation (1). Article 45 provides details on the Senate: three senators are elected from each province, two from the majority and one from the minority, for a period of six years (1). The form in which senators are elected allows local minority parties, which only have support in the provinces, to play an important role in national politics.

Discussion Question 1

Here's the first discussion question for PS337. Your posts should cite concrete examples from your group's constitution, discussing them in the context of the readings and lectures. Posts by the discussion leader should be 500 words. Responses, which should be included as a "comment" to the original post, should be ~300 words. Remember that the leader's post is due on Friday (10/18) at 12PM. Comments are due on Monday (10/21) at 9AM.

"Q1: Does your constitution generally specify majoritarian or consensual institutions (or something in between)?  Does the overall institutional framework reflect your constitution's ideals and goals, as specified in the preamble?"

In answering this question, make sure to focus on the three main institutions that we covered in class: executive structure, electoral system, and federalism.  You should go beyond identifying whether a country is presidential or federal; look into the level of specificity / detail about the powers of the executive or local governments.

If you have questions about how to post to this blog, click on the "How to Post" page tab above. There's also more information in last week's (7.2) lecture notes. 

Discussion 1: Brazil

Discussion 1: Brazil

Alex Gaggino

The Brazilian preamble is a mission statement for the Federal Republic of Brazil, declaring the state to be democratic and outlying the governments broad goals in protecting basic individual rights such as equality, liberty, security, development, and well-being.  These first points of the preamble have one indicator of a consensual system; the federalist structure.

Some notes on finding information about constitutions

An important aspect of your group assignment is tracking down accurate information about your country's constitutions.  This involves finding 1) up-to-date documents, including recent amendments, 2) accurate translations, and 3) older versions / iterations of your constitution.  Most national governments publish their constitutions online (you can find them through a quick google search), and many include official translations.  However, older versions are not as easy to locate.  Importantly, you'll also need to find historical information about the constitution-writing process.  All these information types are rarely in one location.

Accordingly, I have listed a number of good resources on the right-hand column of the front blog page, under "Constitution Links".  You can find more information about these links after the page jump.

Welcome!

This blog is a dedicated online forum for the examination and discussion of the politics of constitution-writing. If you've arrived at this blog, you're most likely enrolled in my course, PS337: Comparative Constitutional Design, at the University of Michigan. If not, I'm assuming you're related to or friends with one of the students. If neither, I'm impressed you've found this, and feel free to stick around.

This blog will be the primary site for discussing the constitutional origins and effects of a select cross-section of countries. There are approximately 60 students in the class, who will be broken up into groups of 5. Each group will focus on one national constitution, with rotating forum leaders responding to discussion questions about the sources and consequences of constitutional design.

For students enrolled in PS337: Instructions for posting to the blog can be found by clicking on the "House To Post" tab above.

I'll update this as we go along!