Compiled Notes and Past Papers of

Political
Science
(Constitutions)
FOR CSS/PMS
By

Mukhmall Hayat Jasra

PSP
(CSS2021,2023;PMS
2023)
Dedicated to
All the dreamers out there who believe in
themselves, work tirelessly and have the ability
to not only see big dreams but also to pursue
them with unwavering passion.
Contents

1. My DMCs page 4-5

2. US Constitution page 6-48
3. UK Constitution page 49-76
4. French Constitution page 76-106
5. German Constitution page 106-121
6. Turkish Constitution page 122-149
7. Iranian Constitution page 150-164
8. Indian constitution page 165-197
9. Chinese Constitution page 197-223
CSS. 2022 DMC

CSS 2023 DMC

PMS 2023 DMC

1. US
Constitution
Past Papers
• How the system of Checks and Balances works in the US political system?
Explain with examples. (20) 2019/2005
• Compare and contest Indian president with American president.
(20) 2018
• To what extent is it true that the President of the United States is more
powerful than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
(UK)? Justify your answer with comparative analysis. (20) 2017
• The Senate of the USA is the most powerful Upper House in the world. Can
you justify this statement? Explain your answer with reference to the Upper
Houses of India and Pakistan. (20) 2016/2010
• The American Senate today is the most powerful legislative body in the world.
Explain. (20) 2015
• Discuss Committee System in American Congress and point out its demerits.
Also compare it with British Committee System US
Senate. Also explain the concept of Senatorial Courtesy. (20) 2014
• American Senate is the saucer in which the boiling tea of the house is
cooled. (20) 2013
• Discuss the powers and functions of US Senate. (20) 2012
• What is judicial review? Discuss its impacts on USA decision making process.
(20) 2012
• Discuss the legislative powers of USA President. (20) 2012
• Discuss Committee System in American Congress and point out its demerits.
Also compare it with British Committee System. (20) 2009
• Discuss the position and powers of UK PM. How does he compare with
American president. (20) 2007
• Characteristics of American Political Party System. How it differs from
Britain? (20) 2006
• Analyse the place of President in American Political System.
Account for his supremacy in the Govt. (20) 2007
• How the system of Checks and Balances works in the US political system?
Explain with examples. (20) 2006
• Election of the American President. (20) 2005
• Compare Law making process of US Congress and British
Parliament. (20) 2005
• Examine the ole of US Supreme Court in the evolution of US Constitution.
(20) 2005
Reading Material

Flowchart

USA Congress
• Congress is a bicameral legislature, comprising the Senate and the
House of Representatives. Both are law-making chambers directly
elected by the people. They have broadly equal powers, making the
Senate the most powerful upper house in the world.
• Senate acts as a check on behalf of the states upon the House of
Representatives which is elected on the basis of population. The
allotment of two senators to each state, irrespective of population,
ensures that the voice of the states in all areas of the country is
clearly expressed. Nevada with less than half a million inhabitants
has as much representation as New York State with approaching
20m.
• With only a very few other exceptions, greater power resided on
Capitol Hill than in the White House right down to 1933. Since the
days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Americans have become used to a
more assertive presidency. His assumption of office led to a massive
extension of federal power as he sought to implement his New Deal
proposals to lift the USA out of economic depression. (In the words
of one writer, Gary Wasserman, presidents have walked a thin line
between too much and too little power in the White House).

Three distinctive Features of the Constitution of the USA:

• Federalism:
The 1787 convention in Philadelphia was called because its
members felt that the new nation needed a much stronger
national government than the Articles of Confederation provided,
but the representatives from the small states refused to join any
national government that did not preserve most of their
established powers. The framers broke the resulting stalemate by
dividing power between the national and the state governments
and gave each state equal representation in the national Senate.
Only thus could the large and small states agree on a new
constitution. Federalism has been widely praised as one of the
greatest American contributions to the art of government. A
number of nations have adopted it as a way of enabling different
regions with sharply different cultures and interests to join
together as one nation.
The American federal system divides government power in the
following principal ways:
1) Powers specifically assigned to the federal government, such
as the power to declare war, make treaties with foreign
nations, coin money, and regulate commerce between the
states.
2) Powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The
main powers in this category are those over education,
marriage and divorce, intrastate commerce, and regulation
of motor vehicles.
3) Powers that can be exercised by both the federal government
and the states, such as imposing taxes and defining and
punishing crimes.
4) Powers forbidden to the federal government, mainly those in
the first eight amendments, such as abridging freedom of
speech, press, and religion, and various guarantees of fair
trials for persons accused of crimes.
5) Powers forbidden to the state governments. Some of these
are in the body of the Constitution, but the main ones are the
Fourteenth Amendment’s requirements that no state shall
“abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law; nor Deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Supreme Court of the United States, an organ of the federal
government and not of the state governments, that decides
which acts of the federal government and the state governments
are within their respective powers.
Separation of Powers:
The Constitution of the United States specifically vests the legislative power in
Congress (Article I), the executive
power in the president (Article II), and the judicial power
in the federal courts, headed by the Suprem (Article III).

The three branches are separated in several ways:

1) Article I, Section 6: “No Person holding any
Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either
House during his Continuance in Office.” This provision means
that each branch is operated by persons entirely distinct from
those operating the other two branches. Thus, for example,
when Senator John Kerry was appointed secretary of state in
2013, he had to resign his seat in the Senate before he could
take up his new post.
The persons heading each branch of the U.S. government are
selected by different procedures for different terms. Members of
the House of
2) Representatives are elected directly by the voters for two-year terms, with no
limit on the number of terms they can serve. Members of the Senate are elected
directly by the voters for six-year terms, without term limits, and their terms are
staggered so that one-third of the Senate comes up for election or reelection
Every 2 years. The president is elected indirectly by the electoral college (which is
selected by
direct popular election) for a four-year term and is limited to two full
elected terms. All federal judges, including the members of the Supreme
Court, are appointed by the president with the approval of a majority of
the Senate, and they hold office until death, resignation, or removal by
Congress.
3) The other main devices ensuring the separation of powers are the checks and
balances by which each branch can keep the other two branches from invading
its constitutional powers. For example, the Senate can disapprove top-level
presidential appointments and refuse to ratify treaties. The two chambers of
Congress acting together can impeach, convict, and remove the president or
federal judges from office. They can (and often do) deny the president the
legislation, appropriations, and taxes he requests. The president, in turn, can
veto any act of Congress, and the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both
chambers to override the veto. The president also makes the initial
appointments of all federal judges. Presidents have normally nominated judges
who are likely to agree with their political philosophies and policy preferences,
but once appointed and confirmed, judges rule without political supervision.

Judicial Review:
As Chief Justice Hughes once stated: ‘We are under the
Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.’
• The question of how to use its judicial power has long exercised the
Court, and different opinions have been held by those who preside over
it. Some have urged an activist Court that enhances individual rights.
They believe that the Court should be a key player in shaping policy, an
active partner working alongside the other branches of government.
Such a conception means that the justices move beyond acting as
umpires in the political game, and become creative participants. Chief
Justice Earl Warren was an exponent of the philosophy. His court was
known for a series of liberal judgements on matters ranging from
school desegregation to the rights of criminals. Decisions were maybe
which boldly and broadly changed national policy.
• Rulings in one age can be overturned by judgements delivered at
another time. This was true of segregation. ‘Separate but equal’ was
acceptable in 1896 in the Plessey v. Ferguson case, but by 1954 it was
deemed ‘inherently unequal’. Judicial review can be defined as the
power of a court to render a legislative or executive act null and void on
the ground of unconstitutionality. All American courts, including the
lower federal courts and all levels of the state courts, exercise this
power on occasion. But the final word on all issues involving an
interpretation of the national Constitution (which, as we have seen, is
“the supreme law of the land’’ belongs to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court can declare any act of the president or Congress null and
void on the ground that it violates the Constitution. Such a decision can
be overturned only by a constitutional amendment or by the Court,
usually with new members, changing its mind. Although every
democracy has to determine who has the final word on what its
constitution allows and prohibits, the United States is one of the few
democracies in which that power is given to the top appellate court of
the regular court system. Some countries, such as Italy, give the final
word to special tribunals rather than to bodies in their regular court
systems, while in others (such as Mexico and Switzerland), the power
includes only the “federal umpire” power, and not the power to
override decisions of the national executive and legislature. Thus,
judicial review is a prominent but not exclusive feature of the American
constitutional system. Because of the important authorities granted to
the Supreme Court by the American Constitution, the Court plays an
active role in shaping policies that affect the everyday lives of
Americans. Abortion rights are an issue of utmost importance both to
right-to-life and to prochoice activists, and ever since the Court’s 1973
Roe v. Wade decision created federal protections for basic abortion
rights, the drive to overturn or uphold this decision has motivated much
political participation. The landmark decision applied a constitutional
right to privacy to abortion rights, while those advocating a right to life
have won some restrictions through Congress and the Supreme Court
on lateterm abortion practices. This has not been the only major debate
decided by the Supreme Court in recent years. In the 2010 session
alone, the Court issued landmark opinions granting corporations the
right to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, broadening
Second Amendment protections by casting the constitutionality of state
and local gun control laws into doubt, and narrowing the rights of
criminal defendants. It was only by a narrow majority that the Supreme
Court in 2012 upheld the Affordable Care Act (President Obama’s
universal health care law), and the decision that upheld it also set great
constraints on the power of Congress and presidents to regulate
interstate commerce in the future. With the Court’s impact looming so
large, and with presidents able to reshape the Court when they
nominate new members to replace departing justices, the direction of
the judicial branch becomes an important part of presidential elections
in America.

THE PRESIDENCY
Constitutional Powers of the Presidency:

• Power to execute the law: The Constitution bestows on the president

executive power and authority over government. (Article II, Section 1, and
Article II, Section 3).
• Power of military authority: The Constitution defers authority over the
nation’s military to the president. (Article II, Section 2)
• Power to pardon: The Constitution gives the president power to pardon or
grant reprieves. (Article II, Section 2)
• Power of diplomacy: The president is given considerable authority in
dealing with the nation’s foreign relations. The Constitution enables the
president to meet with foreign ambassadors and to make treaties. (Article
II, Section 3, and Article II, Section 2)
• Power to veto legislation: The Constitution gives the president some
legislative authority through veto power. After Congress passes a bill, the
president can veto it in an attempt to keep it from becoming law. However,
Congress can overturn the veto when there is supermajority congressional
support for the bill. (Article I, Section 7)
• Power of appointment: The president is given the power to nominate and
appoint, with the Senate’s advice and consent, various political officers,
including members of the Supreme Court. (Article II, Section 2)
• Power to wage war: The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare
war. However, presidents have often engaged in military action without
such congressional declaration. The president derives authority to take
such unilateral military action and effectively “wage war” from the power
implied by the title “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” Some
argue that such action is an abuse of presidential power.
• Power over domestic security: Does the president have unilateral authority
to dispatch federal troops to address domestic threats? Congress is given
explicit constitutional authority to call forth the militia in response to
insurrection and invasion. However, the president has called forth the
National Guard in response to national emergencies such as Hurricane
Katrina in 2005.
• Power to issue executive agreements: To avoid the need to obtain Senate
approval for treaties, presidents have adopted the use of executive
agreements. These agreements, though not addressed in the Constitution,
have the effect of a treaty without requiring Senate approval.
• Executive privilege: Past presidents have maintained that, given the
sensitive nature of information acquired by the executive, the office holds
inherent privacy privileges.
Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have evoked such
executive privilege to keep documents and other information confidential
despite congressional protests.

Shaping the Modern Presidency

• Nineteenth-Century Changes
The President as the Voice of the People Jackson served two terms as
president, from 1829 to 1837, and profoundly changed the office. First,
more than any previous president, he continually justified his actions as
following the people’s will. He considered himself the people’ s legitimate
representative in opposition to the economically and politically well
connected, and especially against Congress, which he berated as a bastion
of special interests. Throughout his administration, he maintained that the
presidency was equal to Congress and not subordinate to it. he viewed
himself as a solver of collective dilemmas.
The Spoils System and Partisan Goals Jackson also created the spoils
system, which lasted in full for 50 y ears and, in some respects, survives to
this day. Under the spoils system, loyal partisans who support the president
during campaigns for office gain government jobs after the elections.
Jackson campaigned for the presidency by harshly criticizing the federal
bureaucracy and promising to replace federal employees on a regular basis.
The spoils system gave Jackson and subsequent nineteenth-century
presidents many opportunities to fill government jobs with party
supporters. Van Buren, Jackson’s second-term vice pr esident, won the pr
esidency in 1836 and used the spoils system to cr eate mass par ties.
Following Jackson’s lead, presidential candidates like Van Buren offered
federal jobs to supporters if elected. The spoils system helped presidents
carry out their policies within the bureaucracy, but it also helped them
solidify the loyalties of new voters toward the party in office. From this
point forward, presidents routinely provided government jobs to people
who supported them and their party. Van Buren’s genius was to exploit and
build on the rapid expansion of voting rights that occurred in this era.
Candidates for president and the presidents themselves needed to mobilize
large n umbers of voters to win mass elections and accomplish what they
wanted to in office. Van Buren saw that the way to mobilize large n umbers
of v oters was to link local, state, and national elec tions around a common
partisan effort.
The President as Military leader Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War set
key precedents for how executive power over the militia can solve the
deepest of collective dilemmas. Lincoln faced the most serious crisis in
American history when the souther n states seceded fr om the Union in
1860–61 and declar ed themselves a separate country, the Confederate
States of America. In order to defeat the souther n rebels and reunite the
countr y, he needed to in vade the South and pr otect the Nor th. He w as
concerned not only about the Con federate army invading the Nor th and
captur ing Washington, D.C., but also about southern infiltration and
sabotage. He had to deal with nor thern states that were reluctant to send
troops, money, and matériel for the war. There was strong resistance to the
draft in the North, including violent draft riots. In other words, the northern
states’ leaders and populations faced deep collective-action problems. They
all wanted to defeat the South or end the war or both, yet it was costly to
contribute to the effort and there were incentives to free ride. Lincoln
responded forcefully to overcome these pr oblems. With the help of allies
in Cong ress, he created what were at the time massi ve government
bureaucracies to supply the ar my with troops, materials, food, and
transpor tation and communication networks. When state governments in
the Nor th resisted his calls for mor e draftees to fight the w ar, he forced
their hand by threatening arrests and armed intervention. And he went
beyond the provisions of the Constitution in temporarily suspending the
writ of habeas corpus, allowing federal troops and local officials to ar rest
people suspected of tr eason and hold them indefinitely without charge. In
essence, he enforced the cooperation of people he needed to contribute to
costly collective efforts. Lincoln often faced a recalcitrant Congress,
stubborn state leaders, and many critics within his own party and the army.
He pushed on with the w ar effort, even when some of his o wn advisers
urged him to settle with the South and end the conflict. Institutionally, he
pushed the boundaries of presidential power during the Civil War by
exploiting ambiguities in the Constitution. He expanded the role of
commander in chief far beyond what previous presidents had done, and
made policy decisions about the war within his administration and
sometimes without full cong ressional approval. Through Lincoln’s efforts,
and with the help of political allies who ag reed with his political goals
(though not necessarily with his institutional methods), the size of the
national government and especially the powers of the president grew
substantially during the Civil War era. In the years since Lincoln’s
presidency, Congress and the courts have given presidents more leeway to
conduct foreign policy and make war than was likely intended by the
Founders. Although many of the b ureaucracies Lincoln cr eated to help pr
osecute the war were abolished after its conclusion, as we saw in Chapter
3, the size of the national government—in terms of both spending and per
sonnel— remained larger after the war than before it. As this example
shows, crises call for quick responses that often require coordination
among, and even coercion of, diverse interests and political g roups. After
the crisis passes, there is often disag reement over whether to r eturn to a
weaker presidency or to maintain the new institutionalized powers of the
executive office. Thus, we see a per sistent dynamic in American political
history: an emergency leads fir st to a str onger presidency and then to
ongoing debates and political conflicts over continuing or rescinding
presidential power. As illustrated by the cases of Lincoln in the Ci vil War
and Obama with the DREAM Act, the presidency has grown stronger largely
as a consequence of individual presidents with enough political support
from the other branches to solve collective dilemmas.
Through the Twentieth Century and into the Twenty-First Developing the
Populist Presidency In the tw entieth centur y, the pr esidency became m
uch mor e populist. Woodrow Wilson, who ser ved two terms from 1913 to
1921, went beyond any previous president in his effort to reach the average
man and woman “in the street.” In part, this was because automobiles and
improved roads gave him technological advantages over his predecessors.
Moreover, Wilson’s philosophy of democratic governance emphasized the
value of direct contact between the president as leader and the people the
pr esident serves. He also ga ve many speeches in Washington trying to
woo the press and interest groups in his favor over political opponents.
President Ronald Reagan, who was elected in 1980, raised this art to a new
level. A former movie star, he had a warm smile and telegenic looks that
endeared him to people and mobilized supporters. Reagan’s ability to use
his personal popularity to win over the general public, who would then
pressure their members of Congress to follow his lead, is legendary. During
one of his televised addresses to the country in 1981 about his proposed
budget, which was stalled in Congress, he could not have been more
explicit: “I urge you again to contact your senators and congressmen. Tell
them of your support for this bipartisan proposal. Tell them you believe this
is an unequaled oppor tunity to help return America to prosperity and
make government again the servant of the people.”6 Reagan continually
battered congressional opponents b y encouraging constituents to inundate
them with letters. Even after he had been in office for 5 years, one
Democratic member of Congress admitted that “we’re still a bit afraid of
him’’. President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has enthusiastically embraced
social media to interact with the public and promote his legislative
priorities. Obama communicates directly with nearly tens of millions of follo
wers on Facebook and on Twitter. As part of his presidential campaign for
re-election, his team developed its own social network,
MyBarackObama.com. This strategy allowed the president direct contact to
his supporters, while also giving him access to information about his
supporters to be used in the r eelection campaign.
Enhancing Presidential Power through Military and
Economic Means
Three men in the office in the early tw entieth century are noteworthy for
changing the natur e of pr esidential power: Theodore Roosevelt,
Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roose velt (FDR). Repub lican
Theodore Roosevelt served as president from 1901 to 1909. He created a
personality cult around the office that had ne ver before existed. An
extraordinarily popular president, he was known as much for his larger-
than-life personality as for his policies. “Teddy” Roosevelt projected an
energetic, athletic, can-do spirit with the help of an increasingly aggressive
press corps who covered his daily actions and utterances in detail. Like
Andrew Jackson, he governed with the attitude that he alone represented
the people.
• Roosevelt responded to collective dilemmas among various economic and
political groups. The industrialization of the country had created an urban
working class that was increasingly militant and demanded a share in the
nation’s wealth. It also gave rise to enormous industrial corporations (the
“trusts”) that Roosevelt considered dangerous to the countr y’s economic
and social well-being. Many people wanted to rein in these trusts, and a
collective effort by various economic interests could have accomplished it.
Such action, however, would have been costly because of the tr usts’ power
and ability to punish opponents. Others wanted to counteract the
increasing power of a small number of trade unions. Roosevelt responded
to pressure from these constituencies by forming regulatory agencies and
using litigation as a forceful tool. For example, rather than w ait for a foot-
dragg ing Congress to leg islate against the trusts—the huge monopoly
corporations that he wanted to break up into smaller companies—
Roosevelt decided to sue them directly from the president’s office. He
initiated 44 lawsuits against companies in his first year in office, an
unprecedented strong-arm tactic for any branch of the national
government to undertake, let alone the presidency. Institutionally,
Roosevelt took major steps to ward creating a national government
bureaucracy to r egulate the acti vities of American businesses. His
executive branch increasingly regulated the railroads, oil companies, and
some forestry industries. This policy expanded the role of the national
government in the economy and gave the presidency a substantial boost in
power. Although Teddy Roosevelt is credited with setting the regulatory
wheels in motion, fullscale regulation of broad sectors of the economy did
not come to fruition until after his cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
became president in 1933.
• Wilson advanced the populism of the office . With regard to world affairs,
Wilson changed the presidency in important ways during and after World
War I. He sought to establish the American president as a major voice in
international politics, on an equal footing with the leaders of the great
powers in Europe. He believed that one of his major roles following World
War I was to help the European countries resolve their internal collective
dilemmas. Wilson emphasized an internationalist foreign policy and
established regular contact with his counterparts abroad. His foreign policy
had broad implications for the future of the presidency. Most presidents
who followed Wilson, including those who served through the Cold War
and into the 1990s, regarded maintaining the peace in Europe, Asia, and
Latin America as a prime mission.
• No president other than Washington has had a greater impact on the
nature of the office than Franklin Delano Roosevelt (known as FDR, to
distinguish him from Teddy). Starting in 1932, he won four elections—more
than any president before or since—and served three full terms. (He died in
1945, about three months into his four th
term.) The two signature achievements of Roosevelt’s presidency, the New
Deal and the leadership of the Allies in World War II, led to massive
increases in the size, reach, and importance of the national government.
After the Wall Street crash of 1929, the national government under
President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress seemed unable or
unwilling to respond effectively to the economic cr isis. Political leaders and
various economic interests disagreed over what the national go vernment
should do. The Democrats swept into power in the 1932 elections on a
wave of optimism, but they too f aced uncertainty and inter nal dissension.
FDR devoted his effor ts to solving collective dilemmas within his o wn party
and across many diverse and competing interests. Within the first 100 days
of taking office in 1933, he laid the groundwork for his New Deal, a set of
policies intended to boost the American economy in the face of the Great
Depression, to stabilize it once it was back on its feet, and to further
regulate the activities of corporations. A byproduct of the policies was to
redistribute income in favor of retirees, widows, the disabled, and orphans.
The New Deal, discussed in detail in Chapter s 3 and 15, was a major
overhaul in the way the national government operated within the American
political system. It gave the executive branch greater authority than ever
before. Under FDR, many new national bureaucracies were created to
regulate the economy, with the result that the White House directed
economic policies to an unprecedented degree. New Deal policies,
including Social Security and unemployment insurance, increased both the
tax es the national go vernment collected from people and the benefits
people received from the national government. In the w ake of FDR’ s New
Deal, the political f ate of all pr esidents— including re-election prospects,
overall popularity, and ability to get legislation passed in the Congress—has
increasingly been tied to the state of the national economy. Because the
presidency now wielded so much power, the American people could
legitimately blame presidents when the economy was in trouble and
reward them when times were good. As during Lincoln’s presidency, the
Roosevelt administration’s war effort also greatly expanded the size of the
national government. The massive mobilization of more than 5 million U.S.
soldiers and sailors during World War II (1941– 45) necessitated a huge
government bureaucracy to oversee their recruiting, training, supply, and
transpor t. Unlike in the past, however, the militar y did not shrink after the
war to a tiny peacetime force, but remained large and strong. FDR’s
successors, Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, carried
on many of his policies. After World War I, the United States had g radually
withdrawn from European politics. By the end of World War II, however,
the country had by and large abandoned its isolationist foreign policy and
become deeply involved in international affairs on every continent. The
national government spawned a huge military bureaucracy devoted
to gathering intelligence, protecting Europe (and ultimately Korea) from
communist aggression, and participating in new international
organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the Nor th Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO). The victory in World War II under FDR
ushered in a new era of American leadership on the world stage, which in
turn raised the American president to new heights of power and
influence. The growth of the federal government spilled over into the
president’s own office. FDR created a massive bureaucracy within the
executive branch devoted to helping him mak e economic and for eign
policy decisions, in addition to implementing policies decided upon by the
legislative branch. Figure 6.2 shows the current bureaucracy built around
the office of the president. It is important to recognize that none of these
bureaucratic institutions, other than the cabinet departments, existed
before FDR took office. Today’s Powerful Presidency
• The Veto As we saw in Chapter 5, if Congress passes a bill, the president
can either sign it into law or veto it. Congress can override a veto with a
two-thirds vote in both chambers. If Congress overrides the president’s
veto, the bill becomes law without presidential signature. Presidents can
also exercise a pocket veto by failing to sign legislation at the end of a cong
ressional session. If Congress is not in session, then bills unsigned by the
president 10 days after being passed by Congress are considered vetoed.
Congress must pass the law again in the next session to keep the bill alive.
In recent decades, the pocket veto has been very rare because Congress
has learned to anticipate the president’s possible action and has paid
attention to the timing of legislation to avoid the 10-day cutoff. This does
not mean the pocket veto is now unimportant.
Contemporary scholars have studied how the mere threat of the veto can
convince Congress to modify a piece of legislation. So presidents may not
actually need to use the veto to achieve their goals. Presidents make so-
called veto threats by publicly stating that if Cong ress passes a bill that is
not to their liking ,they will veto it. Scholars have shown that Congress
tends to modify bills after presidents issue veto threats. This is a case of an
institutional device, the veto, granting the president considerable power
over legislation; the president doesn’t actually need to use it, but only to
have it available for use if necessary.
• Appointments The Constitution g rants the pr esident the po wer to mak e
appointments to executive departments and other b ureaus, and to the
federal cour ts. Beginning with George Washington, presidents have shaped
their go vernments by appointing people who agree with them on
policy matter s. With the growth of the federal government, this
prerogative has become even more significant. Today, presidents make
thousands of appointments to populate a m uch larger and more powerful
national bureaucracy that affects the w ell-being of every community in the
country Most presidential appointments that require the Senate’s “advice
and consent” are routinely approved. High-profile positions, including
cabinet secretaries and especially Supreme Court justices, can be
controversial, and occasionally the Senate will reject a presidential
appointment. But by and large, appointment of personnel at the top of the
executive agencies and in the courts occurs as the president sees fit.
Certain kinds of positions, especially ambassadorships to foreign countries,
are often handed out as rewards to people who helped the president get
elected. For example, President George W. Bush appointed David H.
Wilkins, a major contributor to his 2004 campaign, as ambassador to
Canada. Similarly, President Barack Obama appointed Dan Rooney, owner
of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team and an early suppor ter of Obama’s
candidacy in Pennsylvania, to be ambassador to Ireland. These
appointments followed a long, bipartisan tradition of handing out federal
jobs to thank people and curry favor with donors and the party faithful.
• Executive Orders, Executive agreements, and Signing Statements Modern
presidents also have several legal maneuvers at their disposal to bypass
Congress. An executive order is a regulation or a rule made by the president
that has the force of law. In the early years of the Republic, such orders
typically dictated the manner in which the federal b ureaucracy would
implement laws passed by Congress. In more recent years, presidents have
used executive orders to make major policy changes and even exercise war
powers. Examples include Harry S. Truman’s order that desegregated the
armed forces, Lyndon Johnson’s order that the U .S. government adopt affir
mative action, and Bill Clinton’s order that led to the use of militar y force
in Kosovo. (Technically, President Obama’s action on immigration discussed
in the opening stor y was not formally an executive order but simply a
directive for an agency to follow and did not involve formal changes in any
laws or regulations.) All recent presidents have issued executive orders to
avoid waiting for legislation that might not be forthcoming from a Congress
controlled by the opposition party.12 Sometimes resistance by members of
the president’s own party prompts the president to resort to an executive
order. Truman desegregated the armed forces in 1948 after bills intr
oduced in Congress to do the same w ere repeatedly stymied by southern
Democrats. Truman issued his executive order in response to a bill
proposed by a group of so-called Dixiecrats, which would have given
soldiers a choice of whether to serve in biracial units. Truman’s order did
not offer soldiers a choice. Another reason for the use of executive orders
over the past century is that the United States has been engaged in many
wars since the 1930s. Executive orders are issued frequently during
wartime because presidents do not feel they have the time to wait for
congressional action. The courts generally have upheld the r ight of
presidents to issue ex ecutive orders, within limits. In two notable cases,
however, federal judges ha ve ruled that the president overstepped the
bounds of executive authority and defied laws passed by Congress:
Truman’s seizure of the steel mills in 1952 (discussed earlier), and Clinton’s
1996 order preventing government agencies from contracting with
organizations that had strikebreakers on their payrolls. In the latter case,
the court held that Clinton’s executive order violated established law on
labor relations. Congressional legislation can overturn an executive order,
although such a law must generally survive a presidential veto. Thus, if a
president is
 Administrative and Financial Resources confident.
The power of the
pr esidency has incr eased over time par tly as a r esult of presidents reacting to
crises, including wars, depressions, and civil unrest. One important way
presidents “react” to crises is to create new bureaucratic agencies designed to
help them implement policy and mak e decisions. These agencies help coordinate
government action across various parts of the government. The growth of the
federal b ureaucracy has been par ticularly dramatic in recent years. When
George Washington was president, his cabinet consisted of five people and the
national government’s budget was a mere $4 million. (Evenin the late eighteenth
century, this was a small figure compared to the size of the American economy.)
Today, Barack Obama presides over a vast federal bureaucracy with more than 2
million civilian employees and a budget of $3.8 trillion. Because presidents have
usually acted together with Congress in solving a crisis, the required congressional
approval for these new agencies has sometimes been easy to obtain. For
example, FDR established the Executive Office of the President (EOP; discussed
later) b y executive order; Congress did not object and even approved
money for the staff .

Law-Making Process

Committee System
Committee Membership:
Each committee has a chair who o versees its work. Chairs of the major
committees are powerful people in the American political system. In many
instances, they can by themselves determine the fate of legislation. They can
defeat a bill by slowing it down in the committee, ignoring it, or encouraging
colleagues to amend it to death by watering it down to such an extent that it no
longer accomplishes its original purpose. Chairs can also insert items into bills
with dramatic consequences. In one instance of major historical importance,
Howard Smith of Virginia, chair of the House Rules Committee in the early
1960s, single-handedly inserted into the bill that eventually became the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 a provision that gender was to be a protected category
similar to race. This meant that people could be sued for discriminating against
people because of their sex. He made the provision a requirement of his support
for the bill. Many historians believe that Smith, who generally opposed new
federal civil rights laws for blacks, actually made the addition to kill the bill. He
mistakenly thought that his colleagues would reject the new provision and thus
the bill. Furthermore, most standing committees have subcommittees to address
specific topics. Composed of members of the full committee, subcommittees can
be quite impor tant, with subcommittee chair s wielding considerab le power over
legislation in their jurisdiction. Determining committee assignments is a highly
political process. As previously noted, members on all committees are assigned by
their party leaders, and the majority of seats one ach committeea re held by
majorityparty members. In suppor t of the par tisan model of Congress, research
has shown that party leaders reward loyal party members by granting them their
choice of committee assignments. They lik ewise punish those who have been
dislo yal by g iving them undesirab le committee assignments, using the
committee assignment pr ocess as one tool to keep members in line.

Consequences of the Committee System

The committee system is well suited to accomplishing tw o somewhat
contradictory goals: creating better pub lic policy and assisting member s in their r
e-election efforts. First, as proponents of the informational model of Congress
point out, the committee system provides expertise to improve lawmaking and is
the k ey, distinctive institutional feature of Congress. Crafting effective public
policy that will make constituents content and want to re-elect incumbents is
difficult. The average member of Congress may not know much about agricultural
price supports, or the finer points of nuclear power, or defense strategy in the
Middle East. But by creating a committee system and enabling members to
specialize, both the entire legislative body and the entire country benefit. This
basic function of committees—to provide better knowledge— is the centerpiece
of the informational model. Second, the committee system is well suited to
members’ individualism. The system fragments political power and redirects the
limelight, enabling members to play a role in crafting leg islation and ear n credit
from constituents. Each member, through his or her role on key committees of
concern to constituents, can credibly claim to be powerful and important.
Furthermore, as proponents of the distr ibutional model of
Cong ress point out, committees g ive special opportunities to their members to
insert into legislation language granting government projects specifically to one
district or state.

Party System

History of Party Systems in the united States

Three long-term trends in the development of parties and the American party system:
1) Increasing democratization: The par ties became mor e oriented to ward
including all voters in their decision making over time, especially with the
advent of primaries to choose candidates to r un under the par ty labels. By
the early twentieth century, the two major parties were mostly using
primary elections instead of party caucuses (small meetings of party
loyalists) to choose local candidates and candidates for Congress.
2) More centralized organizations: The parties became mor e nationalized, as
distinct from collections of local par ties with little in common. Much of this
change occur red in the last part of the twentieth century and paralleled
the increasingly centralized nature of American federalism (see Chapter 3).
These two trends are related, and there are strong reasons to believe that
the centralization of the political system caused the nationalization of the
political parties. This has especially been the case since the 1970s, when
the major par ties became adept at raising money for their congressional
and presidential candidates.
3) The enduring two-par ty system: There has been much turbulence and
strife in American party history, with some parties failing to survive (the
Whigs) and other s rising (the modern Republicans), and some par ties
being dominant for long periods (as the Republicans were between 1896
and 1932). But one thing has stayed constant: the number of serious
competitors for control of Congress and of the presidency has always been
limited to two. Minor parties have played important roles at times, and
have even garnered a significant share of the vote in national elections.
Nevertheless, the United States is undeniably the classic case of a two party
system.
More than 95 percent of the votes cast in nearly all elections for national
office are for Democrats or Republican.The occasional exceptions when
third parties do reasonably well in runs for president (1912, 1968, 1980,
1992, 2000), or when independents win state-wide or congressional races,
are newsworthy because they are unusual.
• Two Parties versus More Parties: Nearly every other democratic
country in the world has more than two parties that compete seriously
for seats in the national parliament and have a chance to participate in
the government. Most advanced industrial democracies have at least
four major parties that win seats in the parliament. Furthermore,
governments typically consist of multiple parties. That is, in most
democracies, no one party controls a majority of seats in the
parliament, and thus multiple parties join together to form a majority
and elect the government.
• There is great variation in party systems across the world. Germany
has six parties that compete seriously for parliament and regularly win
seats, while Italy has six parties that win seats in parliament, but more
than 27 smaller parties that form coalitions with the six major parties.
India has an unusually high number of parties in the national parliament
(as man y as 26 in recent years); this is largely because there are many
state-level parties that send representatives to the national parlia ment.
If the pattern in India were replicated in the United States, it would be
as though many states had both national parties—the Democrats and
Republicans— running candidates for office, but being challenged
seriously by a state party with an entirely different label and pursuing
state-specific interests. Imagine if Florida elected to Congress members
of a party called the Florida First Party, and these members were not
directly aligned with either major national party. This is what happens in
India, and in a few other countries such as Brazil and Spain.
• 1) Apart from the larger n umber of par ties and the m ultiparty
composition of governments, parties in other countries tend to be more
ideologically cohesive, more centralized, and more disciplined than
American parties. By discipline, we mean the degree to which party
members in the legislature vote together on bills. A party is said have
strict party discipline if all its members routinely support its positions
and vote accordingly.
• 2) It is relatively common in the United States for members of a given
party in the House or Senate to be di vided on a g iven bill, some voting
yea and some voting nay. American politicians’ party loyalty is often a
matter of degree and depends on context.26 American political parties
are less disciplined in this sense than parties in most Western European
countries and in other advanced industrial democracies.
• 3) To be sure, party leaders can make life uncomfortable for mavericks
who vote against the par ty too often. Parties do this b y, for example,
funding an opponent in the pr imary or den ying the member of Cong
ress committee assignments that help him or her win re-election. But it
is a matter of deg ree. In the American system, a politician who is
popular with his or her constituents does not have to pay much
attention to party leaders. This explains why American
parties are not terribly disciplined in Congress, at least relative to
parties in other countries.
• 4) Another way in which American parties have differed from those in
other countries, at least until recently, is in their increasing orientation
toward highprofile, personalized campaigning by the parties’ leaders.
In any given national election in the United States, the candidate for the
pr esidency is the focus of attention and the most visible symbol of the
party. He or she appears on television to represent the party’s views and
sets its priorities following the election. Parties in other democracies
have traditionally been more teambased. Candidates ran for election to
the parliament under the par ty label and communicated with the public
as a group on the basis of a party platform (a manifesto of policies the
party will pursue once in office).

Factors explain the historical weakness of American parties

1) the federal system of government, which means that the attitudes
adopted in each party vary from state to state.
2) the operation of the idea of the separation of powers, which encourages
members of all parties in Congress to act as a watchdog in the
Constitution, checking the actions of a president with whom they
are in nominal political agreement.
3) the notion of consensus in American politics; both Democrats and
Republicans subscribe to the ideals of the ‘American Creed’, liberty,
equality, individualism, democracy and the rule of law.
4) the ethos of individualism in American society, which stresses the role of
the individual citizen in shaping his or her own destiny.

In the twentieth century, the parties became even weaker than they were,a
process helped by:

1) The growing use of primary elections, which took power away from
the party bosses.
2) The development of the mass media, which placed more emphasis on
candidate-centred electioneering.
3) The arrival of new issues on the agenda in the
1960s and 1970s which cut across the party divide (feminism,
environmentalism, civil rights and Vietnam).
4) The increasing importance of pressure groups and political action
committees, which meant that there were more causes in which
Americans could participate and alternative bodies for fundraising for
candidates.
5) The breakdown of traditional allegiances among sections of the
electorate and a growth of volatility in voting behavior.
Federalism in America:

As president between 1981 and 1989, Ronald Reagan presided over a ‘devolution
revolution’.After his eight years in office,the states were funding more of their
own programmes and the number run by the federal government in Washington
was markedly curtailed. As a result of his initiatives and the approach of his
successors,the last two decades or so have been categorised by Singh as an era of
‘devolutionary federalism’.

• Like his predecessors, an ex-state governor, George W.

Bush portrays himself as ‘a faithful friend of federalism’. Particularly in the
early days in office, he leaned on the advice of leading statec officials.
• But later developments have worked against such a prodevolution policy,
noticeably: • the dislike of the Religious Right for some state laws, such as
same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and euthanasia in Oregon • the fears
of the business community about excessive regulation by state
governments • the attack on the Twin Towers, which focused attention on
Washington, as Americans looked to the White House for a lead in
combating terrorism.
Federalism has been beneficial in many ways, its advantages to Americans
including the following:
• It recognises the distinctive history, traditions and size of each state,
allowing for national unity but not uniformity. If the people of one state,
such as Texas, want the death penalty, they can have it; other states, such
as Wisconsin, which voted to abolish it, are not forced to follow suit. • It
provides opportunities for political involvement to many citizens at state
and local level; state governments provide thousands of elective offices
for which citizens can vote or run. • States are still a powerful reference
point in American culture,and many citizens identify strongly with their
state as well as with their country. • States provide opportunities for
innovation, and act as a testingground for experiments which others can
follow in areas such as clean air and health care.
2. UK
Constitution
Past Papers
• Local Govt system under Unitary form in UK. (20) 2020
• To what extent is it true that the President of the United
States is more powerful than the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom (UK)? Justify your answer with
comparative analysis. (20) 2017
• Discuss the salient features of the judicial system in
France. How does it differ from that of the Britain and
Pakistan.(20) 2016
• “The British P.M. is a shining moon among stars”. In the
light of this statement discuss carefully the position and
powers of English Prime Minister. (20) 2015
• Explain the evolution of British Monarchy with focus on
gradual transfer of powers from the Monarch to the Prime
Minister. (20) 2014
• Explain why kinship was not abolished in England? (20)
2013
• What are the principles on which British Cabinet is
organized and functions. Also mention Four occasions of
Cabinet change.(20) 2011
• Explain how the British democracy is overshadowed by the
cabinet dictatorship.(20) 2010/2002
• Discuss Committee System in American Congress and point
out its demerits. Also compare it with British Committee
System.(20) 2009
• Do You agree that sovereignty of the Parliament is the
dominant characteristic of British Political System? Explain
in Detail the role of Parliament.(20) 2008
 Position and Power of the British PM. Compare him with
US POTUS.(20) 2007
• How Dictatorship of the Cabinet has undermined the
supremacy of the Parliament in UK. (20) 2006
• Ministerial Responsibility is the Cordinal principle of British
Parliament. (20) 2001
• Examine the roll of US and UK Political Parties in
formulting Public Opinion on Issues in Foreign Policy
Making.(20) 2002
• Compare Law-Making process in US Congress and British
Parliament. (20) 2003
• Fundamental Principles of British Constitution. Powers and
Functions of Cabinet. (20) 2005
Reading Material
Flow Chart

Britain constitution:
1) Unwritten constitution: is a jumble of Acts of
Parliament, judicial pronouncements, customs, and
conventions that make up the rules of the political
game.
2) It is flexible a point that political leaders such as
Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair have exploited to
increase their own power The unwritten British
constitution can be changed by a majority vote in
Parliament, where the government commands a
majority. The government of the day can also change it
by acting in an unprecedented manner and claiming that
this is a new custom.
3) The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court the final
power to decide what the government may or may not
do. By contrast, in Britain, the final authority is
Parliament. Courts do not have the power to declare an
Act of Parliament unconstitutional.
4) Many statutes delegate broad discretion to a Cabinet
minister or to a public authority. Even if the courts rule
that the government has improperly exercised its
authority, the effect can be annulled by a subsequent
Act of Parliament retroactively authorizing an action.
5) The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution allows anyone
to turn to the courts for the protection of their personal
rights. Instead of giving written guarantees to citizens,
the rights of British people are meant to be secured by
trustworthy governors. An individual who believes his or
her personal rights have been infringed must seek
redress through the courts by invoking the European
Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 British
Human Rights Act, adopted to give the Convention the
effect of law in Britain.
6) Crown is the abstract concept: It combines dignified
parts of the constitution, which sanctify authority by
tradition and myth, with efficient parts, which carry out
the work of government. The Queen does not influence
the actions of what is described as Her Majesty’s
Government; she is expected to respect the will of
Parliament, as communicated to her by the leader of the
majority in Parliament, the prime minister.

Prime Minister of the Britain

 A politician at the apex of government is remote from what is happening
on the ground. The more
responsibilities attributed to the prime minister, the less time there is to
devote to any one task. Like a president, a prime minister is the prisoner
of the law of “first things first.”
The imperatives of the prime minister are as follows:
1) Winning elections: A prime minister may be selfinterested, but he or
she is not self-employed. To become prime minister, a politician must
first be elected leader of his or her party. Seven prime ministers since
1945—Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold
Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, James Callaghan, John Major, and
Gordon Brown—entered Downing Street during the middle of a
Parliament rather than after a national election.
2) Campaigning through the media: A prime minister does not need to
attract publicity; it is thrust upon him or her by the curiosity of television
and newspaper reporters. Media eminence is a double-edged sword,
since bad news puts the prime minister in an unfavorable light.
3) Patronage: To remain prime minister, a politician must keep the
confidence of a party, or in the case of coalition leader David Cameron,
the confidence of two parties, the Liberal Democrats as well as
Conservatives. The prime minister can silence potential critics by
appointing them to posts as government ministers. In dispensing
patronage, a prime minister can use any of four criteria: (1) personal
loyalty (rewarding friends), (2) cooption (silencing critics by giving them
an office so that they are committed to support the government),
(3) representativeness (for example, appointing a woman or a minority
ethnic MP), or (4) competence in giving direction to a government
department.
4) Parliamentary performance : The prime minister appears in the
House of Commons weekly for half an hour of questions from MPs that
involve the exchange of rapid-fire comments with a highly partisan
audience. Unprotected by a speechwriter’s script, the prime minister
must show that he or she is a good advocate of government policy or
suffer a reduction in confidence. Attending important debates in the
Commons and occasionally mixing with MPs in its corridors and tea
rooms helps the prime minister to judge the mood of the governing
party.
5) Making and balancing policies As head of the British government, the
prime minister deals with heads of other governments around the
world; this makes foreign affairs a special responsibility of Downing
Street.
 While the formal powers of the office remain constant, individual prime
ministers have differed in their electoral success, how they view their job,
and their
impact on government, Labour . 1) Clement Attlee prime
minister from 1945 to 1951, was an unassertive
spokesperson for the lowest common denominator of views within a Cabinet
consisting of very experienced Labour politicians. succeeded Attlee
in 1951, he concentrated on 3) Margaret Thatcher foreign
affairs and took little interest 2) Winston Churchill in
domestic policy. had
strong views about many major policies; associates gave her the nickname
“Tina” because of her motto: There Is No Alternative. Thatcher was prepared to
push her views against the wishes of Cabinet colleagues and civil service
advisors. In the end, her “bossiness” caused a revolt of Cabinet colleagues that
helped bring about her downfall .4) Tony Blair won office by campaigning
appealingly, and this was his priority in office too. Blair used his status as an
election winner and control of ministerial patronage to silence potential critics
in Cabinet. 5) As the Treasury minister making decisions about departmental
budgets, Gordon Brown used this power of the purse to build up support to
secure his succession as prime minister. However, his personal style in that
office lost him the support of Cabinet colleagues and of public opinion.
Compare US POTUS and Britain PM:
The personalization of campaigning, encouraged by the media, has led to
claims that Britain now has a presidential system of government.
1) However, by comparison with a U.S. president, a British prime minister
has less formal authority and less security of office.
2) The president is directly elected for a fixed four-year term. A prime
minister is chosen by his or her party for an indefinite term and is thus
vulnerable to losing office if the party’s confidence wanes.
3) The president is the undoubted leader of the federal executive branch
and can dismiss Cabinet appointees with little fear of the consequences.
By contrast, senior colleagues of a prime minister are potential rivals for
leadership and may be kept in Cabinet to prevent them from challenging
him or her.
4) A prime minister can be confident that a parliamentary majority will
endorse the government’s legislative proposals, whereas the president
is without authority over Congress.
5) Moreover, the prime minister is at the apex of a unitary government,
with powers not limited by a federal structure or by the courts and a
written constitution.

The Judiciary
(The creation of a Supreme Court as the highest
judicial authority in the United Kingdom in 2009 replaced the
centuries-old practice of the highest court operating as a committee
of the House of Lords. The Supreme Court consists of a president and
eleven justices appointed by a panel of lawyers. It is the final court of
appeal on points of law in cases initially heard by courts in England,
Wales, and
Northern Ireland)
Judicial independence in Britain: Lord Denning described the
independence of the judiciary as ‘‘the keystone of the rule of law in
England’’.
According to John Griffiths, ‘‘the most remarkable thing about
the appointment of judges is that it is wholly in the hands of
politicians’’. The independence of the British judiciary is
supposed to be protected in three ways:
• 1. the way in which judges are selected  2. their security of
tenure
 3. their political neutrality
• 4. In Britain, there is an additional protection. There is a tradition
that the remarks and sentences of judges in court cases should not
be subject to parliamentary debate or criticism. In the words of
Lord Hailsham, parliamentary criticism was ‘subversive of the
independence of the judiciary’.
• 5. Those involved in court proceedings – judges, juries, lawyers,
witnesses and the accused – are all granted immunity from the laws
of defamation for any comments made in court.
• 6. Finally, judges receive fixed salaries that are not subject of
parliamentary approval.
The appointment of judges in Britain:

• Today, judges are still appointed by the government of the day. The
most senior judges are appointed by the Prime Minister. (The
appointment of judges is an important duty. If a prime minister has a
long innings in office, it may be significant in determining the overall
membership of the Bench. By the time of her departure, Margaret
Thatcher had appointed all but one of the law lords and all of the
lord justices of appeal. Appointments may be made on merit, but
they can be contentious.There was press speculation that she had
made Lord Donaldson Master of the Rolls, because of his political
affiliations).
• Following consultation with the Lord Chancellor. High court judges,
circuit judges and magistrates are appointed by the Lord
Chancellor, mostly from the ranks of senior barristers, known as QCs
(Queen’s Council). He receives advice from the Judicial
Appointments
Commission, which scrutinises candidates for the judiciary and makes
recommendations to the Lord Chancellor,but the final choice still rests with
him. Since 1994,the Lord Chancellor’s department has openly advertised
for district and circuit judges, in the hope that this might broaden the range
of candidates for consideration.
• However, new arrangements were announced by the Lord
Chancellor in mid-2003 and became law in the
Constitutional Reform Act passed two years later. A new Judicial
Appointments Commission will look at the way in which judicial
appointments are made.A key issue was whether or not it would have the
power to make appointments or merely to advise on them (or perhaps to
make more junior appointments and advise on more senior ones). At the
time of writing (May 2005), the exact way in which the Commission will
operate is unclear. It would seem that the Commission will put forward
nominations, there being clear restrictions on the ability of the Lord
Chancellor to reject them. For appointments to the new Supreme Court,
the minister should receive only one name from the Commission The
hierarchy of judges in Britain
There are several categories of judges who preside over British courts.

• At the apex of the hierarchy is the Lord Chancellor. In his judicial

capacity, he is effectively the ‘top judge’, responsible for the whole
civil law and legal aid systems, and for many judicial appointments.
As a member of the House of Lords (he is also its speaker), he may
participate in the most important appeal cases that it handles. In
this capacity, he is supported by up to eleven law lords. Each of
these judges may deliver a separate judgement, the verdict being
determined by a majority.
• Below the Lord Chancellor are the Lord Chief Justice, who heads the
Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, and the Master of the Rolls
(i.e.
the roll of solicitors), who heads the Civil Division of the Court of
Appeal.
• The other group that is included within the ranks of the senior
judges are those who sit in the High Court. All of the senior judges
are chosen from barristers of at least ten years’ experience.
• Below them are circuit judges who sit in the crown courts, then the
recorders (part-time judges) and at the bottom of the hierarchy are
the magistrates (justices of the peace), lay people rather than
trained lawyers.
Tenure of judges:
Once installed in office, judges should hold their office for a
reasonable period, subject to their good conduct. Their promotion or
otherwise may be determined by members of the government of the
day, but they should be allowed to continue to serve even if they are
unable to advance.They should not be liable to removal on the whim
of particular governments or individuals. In some cases, they may
serve a fixed term of office. They usually remain in position for many
years. US supreme court judges normally serve for a very long
period, although theoretically they may be removed by
impeachment before Congress if they commit serious offences. In
Britain, the Act of Settlement (1701) established that judges be
appointed for life. They are very hard to remove and serve until the
time of their retirement. Today, those who function in superior
courts are liable to dismissal on grounds of misbehavior. This can be
done only after a vote of both Houses of Parliament and has not
actually happened in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Neither are lower judges normally dismissed. Dismissal only applies
in cases of dishonesty, incompetence or misbehaviour. In 1983, one
judge was dismissed for whisky smuggling.
Judicial neutrality:
• By convention, judges are above and beyond politics, apolitical
beings who interpret but do not make the law. As such, their
discretion is limited. In fulfilling their role, judges are expected to be
impartial, and not vulnerable to political influence and pressure.
They are expected to refrain from partisan activity and generally
have refrained from commenting on matters of public policy. (But
such a view is naive and a series of distinguished British judges from
Denning to Devlin, from Radcliffe to Reid, have acknowledged that
their role is much more creative than mere interpretation. This is
because, apart from their work in relation to sentencing criminals,
judges are involved in passing judgement in numerous cases relating
to areas such as governmental secrecy, industrial relations, police
powers, political protest, race relations and sexual behavior).
• The background of judges: in Britain Many judges reached their
eminence having practised at the Bar, the membership of which has
long been held to be elitist and unrepresentative. (As a result of the
manner of selection (see pp. 158– 62) and the choice available,
judges were usually born into the professional middle classes, and
often educated at public school and then Oxbridge. They tended to
be wealthy, conservative in their thinking, middle-aged when first
appointed (in their sixties
before they attain a really powerful position in the House of Lords or
Court of Appeal) and – like so many people in ‘top’ positions in British
life – out of touch with the lives of people from different
backgrounds). Anatomy of Britain, Anthony Sampson has concluded
that the social background of judges: His research illustrated the
exclusiveness of the judiciary: • 90 per cent of the judiciary were
public school/Oxford or Cambridge educated • their average age was
60 • 95 per cent were men • 100 per cent were white.
• Judges as protectors of liberties in Britain:
1) Judges always have had a role in interpreting common law and for
centuries have been willing to defend the rights of ‘free born
Englishmen’ to speak freely.
2) Some judges have long shown an interest in the idea of a British
Bill of Rights. For several years before the introduction of the
Human Rights Act, more European-minded judges such as Lord
Scarman were calling for its incorporation into British law.
3) More recently, a limited concept of judicial review has been
developed in which, if not the policy at least the lawfulness of
governmental actions have been found wanting.
4) A number of judges have been willing to criticise aspects of
government policy that seem detrimental to civil liberties – for
instance, Labour ran into difficulties with its Freedom of
Information Bill when it was going through the Lords, and in its
attempts to make inroads into the principle of trial by jury.
Judicial review in Britain:

• In Britain, there is no equivalent to the American Supreme

Court, which can strike down legislation as unconstitutional.
No court has declared
unconstitutional any act lawfully passed by the British Parliament, the
sovereign law-making body.
• The Home Office is the department that has been most
challenged in the British courts, attracting as it does some
three-quarters of all challenges to government decisions. In
the 1990s under the Major government, there were several
cases involving the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard,
who was found to have acted unlawfully in a number of
cases.
• There is no written constitution against which the
constitutionality of actions and decisions can be judged.
• in Britain it means the right to determine whether the
Executive has acted beyond its powers. It enables judges to
assess the constitutionality of executive actions in the light
of ordinary laws, using the doctrine of ultra vires..
• The upsurge in cases involving this modest doctrine of
judicial review has been striking. It reflects the growing
human rights culture in Britain, with many lawyers willing
to take up cases to challenge what they regard as the
misuse of executive power. Attracting as it does much
attention from the media,it has caused embarrassment to a
succession of ministers and on occasion resulted in public
confrontations between the courts and the politicians. It is
an indication of the increasingly political role played by
justices.
The British two-party system
Historically, Britain has had a two-party system, Labour and the
Conservatives being the dominant parties since the 1930s.In only
one election since 1945,has one of the major parties failed to win an
outright Commons’ majority. The high peak of the two-party system
was in 1951 when between them Labour and the Conservatives won
98.6 per cent of the votes and 96.8 per cent of the seats. Indeed,
between 1979 and 1997 only one party (the Conservatives) secured
victories at the polls, leading to suggestions that we had a
dominant-party system, or a twoparty system with one-party
dominance.
The attitudes and beliefs of political parties:
(Parties can be classified according to their place on the political
spectrum. The terms left and right were originally used to describe the
attitudes adopted by different groups in the French EstatesGeneral in
1789.They are still employed today.Broadly,those on the left support
an increase in governmental activity to create a more just society in
which economic and social problems can be addressed, whereas those
on the right are more wary of state intervention and seek to limit the
scope of government as much as possible.) The British Conservative
Party:
Key enduring themes for Conservatives are:
•a cautious approach to change
• distrust of the role of ‘big government’
• an emphasis upon law and order
• an emphasis upon
‘Britishness’(patriotism,defending institutions) •a preference for
freedom over equality, and private over-state enterprise.
(Thatcherism was strongly in favour of free enterprise, market forces,
lower taxes and more consumer choice, and hostile to trade-union
power. She stressed individual effort, wanted people to solve their
own problems and admired perseverance and self-reliance, which
she wished to see rewarded.)
The Labour Party
By its 1918 constitution, Labour committed itself to socialism.
Socialism is not a precise term and different party thinkers and
leaders have given it their own slant.
However, many early socialists in the party saw the creed in terms of
the original Clause Four of their constitution. Clause Four was for
several years a ‘sacred cow’of the Labour movement and the left of
the party acted as its guardian :
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their
industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be
possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of
production, distribution and exchange.
Characteristics of Old Labour
Close to trade unions
•Willingness to raise taxes to finance high levels of public
expenditure
• Committed to generous universal welfare benefits and full
employment
• Belief in equality of outcome
• Nominal belief at least in old-style Clause Four, with its belief in
nationalisation
•Working-class party with limited appeal to middle classes
• Lukewarm support/hostility for European
Community
• Use of language of caring, compassion, social justice and equality
•Relatively little interest in presentation and spin/media
manipulation
• Lack of prolonged majority government. The Liberal Democrats:
The Liberal Democrats were formed as a result of a merger
between the old British Liberal party and the Social Democrats, a
break-away element from the Labour right. The new party soon
established its own identity, but the past commitment to pro-
Europeanism, racial justice and tolerance was preserved. Under
Paddy Ashdown’s leadership, the party moved nearer to the
opposition Labour Party,abandoning its former equidistance.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats cooperated on constitutional
proposals before the 1997 election. The two main parties
compared: a summary of Labour and Conservative attitudes and
policies:
 The pace and extent of change. Labour is in business to change
society, to make it better, more just. The Conservatives are
more interested in keeping things as they are, only changing as
change proves necessary.
 The role of government. Labour recognises an important role
for government in changing society and is more willing to use
the power of the state to improve conditions and stamp out
injustice. Traditionally, it is a party of ‘big government’.
Conservatives want to see government play less of a role in the
social and economic life of the nation, being more willing to
allow individuals freely to live their own lives and businesses
left unregulated.
 Taxation. Labour is traditionally more willing to tax the better-
off in order to finance social reform. It is much less so now,
although Chancellor Gordon Brown has resorted to ‘stealth
taxes’ as a means of avoiding putting up levels of income tax.
The Conservatives are traditionally a lower-tax party.
 Government spending. In his early years, the Chancellor
constantly emphasised his message of ‘prudence’ and would
not support high spending on social programmes, but in the
last five years he has allowed much more spending on
education and health. The Conservatives are keen to pare
down spending, especially by costcutting initiatives and ‘wars
on waste.
 Public versus private provision. Labour has always been
committed to a publicly provided welfare state, and a NHS
based on need on ability to pay. Under Tony Blair, it has been
more willing to use the private sector to help offset pressure
on the NHS. Some Conservatives dislike the idea of the welfare
state and NHS and would prefer private provision. The party
generally supports ideas to encourage private treatment in
health care (e.g. tax concessions), and on welfare policy is keen
to look at continental schemes financed by schemes of
insurance.
 Trade unions. Labour was formed out of the trade-union
movement and has historic and emotional links with the
unions and TUC. In the Thatcher era, the Conservatives were
tough on the unions.
In the past there have been clear differences on two more issues, see below:
 Law and order. Labour used to be regularly accused by the
Conservatives of failing to take action to maintain law and
order. The
Conservatives tend to be very tough on law and order, this
being in the past one of their strongest policy issues. They
have been less willing to emphasise the social causes of
disorder.
 Patriotism. Labour was often accused in the past of not
standing up firmly for British interests Over war in Iraq (2003),
it showed that Labour can certainly take firm action when its
leader sees this as being in the British national interest. The
Conservatives have always emphasised their patriotism and
willingness to stand up for Britain, whatever the UN position
might be.
Officially, they were supportive of action over Iraq. The
Conservatives also stress their support for traditional British
institutions, such as the monarchy.
The organisation of British political parties:
They developed a Central Office to act as the professional
headquarters of the party. Central Office controls the
activities of the provincial areas and the constituency agents.
But such organisation, local, regional and national, was there
to serve the parliamentary party and the leadership. The
leader’s influence over the machine has always been a strong
one, it was his or her personal machine to help the occupant
pursue the desired goals and prepare the party for election
success.
Party conferences in Britain
 The party conference is the most important annual gathering of the
Conservatives and provides the main forum for the expression of opinion
by all sections of the party. It serves as a rally of the faithful, who enjoy
the opportunity to vent their feelings and urge the party forward.
Representatives of the constituency associations have complete freedom
to speak and vote
as they choose. They are not delegates committed to act in a certain way.
 By contrast with the Conservatives, the Labour conference was given the
supreme function of directing and controlling the affairs of the party. The
1918 constitution established that party policy is the responsibility of
conference and that decisions taken by a two-thirds majority are
supposed to be regarded as sacrosanct and included in the next
manifesto.However,although opposition leaders pay greater respect to
the sanctity of such decisions,Labour prime ministers have often treated
them in a more cavalier manner.
Party leaders: how they are chosen by the main British parties:
 The Conservatives Under William Hague, the Conservatives – after much
pressure from within the party to adopt a more democratic method –
devised a new procedure. The sitting leader can be challenged if 15 per
cent of the parliamentary party express no confidence in the leader (at
least twenty-five MPs).
 Labour Labour uses an Electoral College to choose its leader.It includes a
33% share for each of the
Parliamentary Labour Party, the party members and the trade unions
who form an integral part of the party structure.
The powers and security of party leaders:
 The Conservatives
At face value the Conservative leader has enormous power. Many years
ago,Robert McKenzie18 described the incumbent as possessing greater
authority and being subject to less restraint than his or her counterpart in
any other democratic country. The leadership was once described by the
American writer Austin Ranney19 as ‘one of autocracy tempered by advice
and information’. In particular,the leader has exclusive responsibility for
writing the election manifesto and formulating party policy, does not have
to attend meetings of the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbench MPs,
has enormous control over the activities of Central Office and the party
machine, appoints (and dismisses) the party chairman, vice chairman and
treasurer and chooses the Cabinet or shadow cabinet.
 Labour
Accordingly, the 1918 constitution imposed restrictions on the power of the
leader, in order to ensure his subservience to the party in Parliament and to
the mass organisation outside. Leaders have to attend backbench meetings
of the Parliamentary Labour Party; (in opposition) work with a shadow
cabinet, the membership of which has been elected by MPs; implement
policies in line with conference decisions; attend conference and give an
annual report of their stewardship.They also lack the control over the
affairs of the party organisation that Conservative leaders possess.

THE MONARCHY—THE NOMINAL EXECUTIVE

Powers The powers of the Head of State are formal, ceremonial and
nonpolitical, and include:
• Granting assent to legislation approved by both
Houses of Parliament;
• Appointing the Prime Minister; Appointing Ministers of the Crown;
• Granting honours and titles;
• And any other powers as may be accorded to the Head of State. The
Head of State must act with strict political neutrality. The Head of State
exercises these powers on the advice of the Prime Minister. Lack of
Republican Sentiment: The modern age has seen the fall of monarchies
in the world. But the monarchy in England is becoming more and more
popular because there is very little republican sentiment in England. The
British people did not abolish the institution of monarchy when they
could have done it easily. In 1689, King James II, left the throne of
England and fled away to France. The British people had a golden
opportunity to establish a republican form of government but this was
not done. Instead they called upon William of Orange and his wife Mary
to occupy the vacant throne. Only once in the history of England, the
republican government was established under Cromwell from 1649 to
1660. But that too was replaced by monarchy. Even at present, there is
very little opposition to this institution. Except the Communists, no
section of British public wants to abolish the institution of monarchy, not
even the Labour Party which highly criticises the aristocratic House of
Lords.

3. French
Constitution
Past Papers
• How the party system in France is different to that
in Germany? Discuss in detail. 2019(Comparative
Politics239-47)
• Write the Composition, Powers and Position of the
French National Assembly.2018 Comparative
Politics253-56)
• Discuss the salient features of the judicial system in
France. How does it differ from that of the Britain
and Pakistan.2016 Comparative Politics255-56)
• Analyse the role of political parties in the post 1958
political system of France. 2014 (Comparative
Politics239-47)
• Discuss the exective powers of the French
president. 2012(Comparative Politics249-53)
• Enumerate the reasons for the downfall of Fourth
French Republic and discuss salient features of
1958 constitution.2011 (Comparative
Politics22124)
• How is the French President elected? Give an
objective analysis of the powers enjoyed by the
President.2010 Comparative Politics249-53)
• How Local Government function in France? Discuss
2009
• Discuss main features of French political system.
2008(Comparative Politics224-28)
• Analyse Powers of the French President.2001
Comparative Politics249-53)
• French system of Govt. is a model of highly
centralized political system discuss.
2002(Comparative Politics224-28)
• French politics is not as liberal as Frenchmen claim.
Discuss it in the light of working of the French
political system.2004(Comparative Politics224-28)
• Powers of the French President under the Fifth
Republic.2005 Comparative Politics249-53)

Reading Material

Flow Chart:
Historical Overview of the
Constitutions
• The First Republic (1791-1804)
Napoleon had himself proclaimed emperor in .
Napoleon’s empire collapsed after ten years as a
consequence of military defeat, but the emperor left
behind a great heritage of reforms: the abolition of
feudal tax obligations, a body of codified laws, the
notion of a merit-based professional bureaucracy (much
of it trained in specialized national schools), and a
system of relationships (or rather, a theory about such
relationships) under which the chief executive derived
his legitimacy directly from the people through popular
elections or referendums.
• The Second Republic (1848–1852) Growing
dissatisfaction among the rising bourgeoisie and the
urban population produced still another Paris revolution
in 1848. With it came the proclamation of the Second
Republic (1848–1852) and universal male suffrage.
Conflict between its middleclass and lower-class
components, however, kept the republican government
ineffective. Out of the disorder rose another Napoléon,
Louis Napoléon, nephew of the first emperor. He was
crowned Napoléon III in 1852 and brought stability to
France for more than a decade.
• Third Republic (1871-1940) the struggle between
republicans and monarchists led to the establishment
of a conservative Third Republic in 1871. The Third
Republic was the longest regime in modern France,
surviving World War I and lasting until France’s defeat
and occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. Yet this
republic had many achievements to its credit, not the
least of which was that it emerged victorious and
intact from World War I; it might have lasted even
longer had France not been invaded and occupied by
the Germans. World War II deeply divided France. A
defeated France was divided into a zone occupied by
the
(Germans and a “free” Vichy zone in the southern half
of France, where Marshall Pétain led a government
sympathetic to the Germans. From July 1940 until
August 1944, the government of France was a
dictatorship. Slowly, a resistance movement emerged
under the leadership of General Charles de Gaulle. It
gained increased strength and support after the Allied
invasion of North Africa and the German occupation of
the Vichy zone at the end of 1942. When German forces
were driven from occupied Paris in 1944, de Gaulle
entered the city with the hope that sweeping reforms
would give France the viable democracy it had long
sought. After less than two years, he resigned as head
of the Provisional Government, impatient with the
country’s return to traditional party politics).
• Fourth Republic (1946–1958)
It took the first steps in the direction of decolonization—
relinquishing control of Indochina, Morocco, and Tunisia
—and paved the way for intra-European collaboration in
the context of the Coal and Steel Community and, later,
the Common Market.
In fact, the Fourth Republic (1946–1958) disappointed
many hopes. Governments fell with disturbing regularity
—twenty-four governments in twelve years. At the same
time, because of the narrowness of government
coalitions, the same parties and the same leaders tended
to participate in most of these governments. Weak
leaders had great difficulty coping with the tensions
created first by the Cold War, then by the French war in
Indochina, and finally by the anticolonialist uprising in
Algeria. It is likely that the
Fourth Republic would have continued if it had not been
for the problem of Algeria and the convenient presence
of a war hero, General Charles de Gaulle. Algeria could
not be easily decolonized, or granted independence,
because more than 1 million French men and women—
many of them tracing their roots in that territory several
generations back—considered it their home and
regarded it as an integral component of France. A
succession of Fourth Republic politicians lacked the will
or the stature to impose a solution of the problem; the
war that had broken out in the mid- s in Algeria
threatened to spill over into mainland France and helped
discredit the regime.

• Fifth Republic in 1958: When a threat of civil war

arose over Algeria in 1958, a group of leaders invited
de Gaulle to return to power and help the country
establish stronger and stabler institutions. De Gaulle
and his supporters formulated a new constitution for
the Fifth Republic, which was enacted by a
referendum in 1958.
De Gaulle was the last prime minister of the Fourth
Republic and then the first president of the newly
established Fifth Republic.
• Past republican regimes, known less for their
achievements than for their instability, were
parliamentary constitutional systems (see Chapter 6),
based on the principle that Parliament could
overturn a government that lacked a parliamentary
majority. Such an arrangement works best when
there are relatively few political parties, and when the
institutional arrangements are not deeply challenged
by important political parties and their leaders. These
assumptions did not apply to the first four republics,
and, at least in the early years, the Fifth Republic
seemed to be destined to suffer a similar fate.

Constitutional Traditions
• The new constitution, which was adopted by an
percent affirmative vote in a popular referendum (September
1958), was tailor-made for de Gaulle.
• Institutional relationships were rearranged, however, so as
to reflect the political ideas that the famous general and his
advisers had often articulated, that is, the ideology of Gaullism.
• The Constitution of 1958 is the sixteenth since the fall of
the Bastille in 1789.
• Nevertheless, direct popular election of the president has
greatly augmented the legitimacy and political authority of the
office. It has also had an impact on the party system, as the
contest for the presidency has dominated party strategies.
• Beyond the Constitution itself, there are several principles
that have become so widely
of as constitutional principles. accepted that they can be
a unitary: thought
state The first of these is that France
is
a “one and indivisible” French Republic. A
second principle is that France is a secular republic, committed
to equality, with no special recognition of any group before the
law. These principles have special meaning for democracy in
France, since they were regularly violated by the multitude of
nondemocratic systems in France after 1789.
• In the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, the Preamble
‘solemnly proclaims its attachment to the Rights of Man.
• The 1958 Constitution m ade provision for such direct
consultation with the voters. Nine had been held by the year
2000, all on constitutional issues. However, a constitutional
amendment passed in 1995 allows for the use of direct
democracy on economic and social policy, and the services that
implement these. (Constitutional topics tackled include
selfdetermination and later independence for Algeria (1961–
2), enlargement of the European Community (1972),
ratification of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and the
introduction of a fiveyear presidency (2000), all of which
issues were approved.Only twice has the ministerial
recommendation been defeated, the first time was in 1969)
Parliament
• Parliament is composed of two houses: the
National Assembly and the Senate. The National
Assembly of 577 members is elected directly for five
years by all citizens over age eighteen. The
government may dissolve the legislature at any time,
though not twice within one year. Under the 1958
rules, the government, rather than the legislature,
controls proceedings in both houses and can require
priority for bills it wishes to promote. Parliament still
enacts laws, but the domain of such laws is strictly
defined. Many areas that in other democracies are
regulated by laws debated and approved by
Parliament are turned over to rulemaking by the
executive in France. The number of standing
committees was reduced to six in 1958, and then
increased to eight by reforms in 2008. The size of the
committees, however, remains sufficiently large (well
over 70) to prevent interaction among highly
specialized deputies who could become effective
rivals of the ministers. Each deputy is restricted to
one committee, and party groups are represented in
each committee in proportion to their size in the
National Assembly. Several “special” committees
have been created in recent years, and the National
Assembly has asserted some independent power as
well, by creating committees of enquiry. One novelty
of the French system in recent years has been to give
the opposition the chairs of a few committees. •
Other devices for enhancing the role of
Parliament have become somewhat more effective
over the years. In the 1970s, the National Assembly
instituted a weekly question period that is similar to
the British (and German) version, a process that was
expanded by amendments in 2008. In 2012–2013,
almost 20,000 written questions were presented to
government ministers, and almost 12,000 evoked
published results. The presence of television cameras
in the chamber (since 1974) creates additional public
interest and records the dialogue between the
government representatives and the deputies. • The
president may submit to the Constitutional Council an
act of parliament or a treaty of doubtful
constitutionality; and he may submit to a popular
referendum any organic bill (i.e., one relating to the
organization of public powers) or any treaty requiring
ratification. The constitution stipulates that he may
resort to a referendum only on the proposal of the
government (while parliament is in session) or
following a joint motion by the two parliamentary
chambers (who meet in congress in Versailles for
formal ratification). But President de Gaulle ignored
this stipulation when he called for a referendum in
1962.
• One of the most interesting—and awesome—
provisions relating to presidential power is Article
, which reads (in part) as follows: When the
institutions of the Republic, the independence of the
nation, the integrity of its
territory or the fulfillment of its international
commitments are threatened in a grave and
immediate manner and when the regular functioning
of the constitutional governmental authorities is
interrupted, the president of the Republic shall take
the measures commanded by these circumstances,
after official consultation with the prime minister, the
[Speakers] of the assemblies and the Constitutional
Council. (De Gaulle invoked the provisions once,
during a failed plot organized in by generals
opposing his Algerian policy. Although Article is
not likely to be used again soon, and though there is a
stipulation that parliament must be in session when
this emergency power is exercised, its very existence
has been a source of disquiet to many who fear that a
future president might use it for dictatorial purposes.
Others view Article more liberally, that is, as a
weapon of the president in his role as a constitutional
watchdog, mediator, and umpire).

Parliament
• The areas in which parliament may pass
legislation are clearly enumerated in the constitution
(Article ). They include, notably, budget and tax
matters; civil liberties; penal and personal-status
laws; the organization of judicial bodies; education;
social security; the jurisdiction of local communities;
the establishment of public institutions, including
nationalized industries; and rules governing elections
(where not spelled out in the constitutional text).
Matters not stipulated fall in the domain of decrees,
ordinances, or regulations, which are promulgated by
the government directly.
• As is the custom in all parliamentary
democracies, a distinction is made between a
government bill (projet de loi) and a private
member’s bill (proposition de loi). The former has
priority; in fact, since the founding of the Fifth
Republic less than percent of all bills passed by
parliament originated with private members (or
“backbenchers”), and most of these passed because
the government raised no objections or because it
encouraged such bills. Finance bills can be introduced
only by the government, and backbenchers’
amendments to such bills are permissible only if
these do not reduce revenues or increase
expenditures. Furthermore, if parliament fails to vote
on (in practice, to approve) a budget bill within a
period of seventy days after submission, the
government may enact the budget by decree. The
Senate:
Total: 348
Mainland France: 323
Overseas territories: 13
Frenchs living abroad 12
The 331 members of the Senate (the “upper house”)
are elected indirectly from department constituencies
for a term of six years (half are elected every three
years—according to a new system adopted in 2003).
They are selected by an electoral college of about
150,000, which includes municipal, departmental,
and regional councilors. Rural constituencies are
overrepresented. The Senate has the right to initiate
legislation and must consider all bills adopted by the
National Assembly. If the two houses disagree on
pending legislation, the government can appoint a
joint committee to resolve the differences. If the
views of the two houses are not reconciled, the
government may resubmit the bill (either in its
original form or as amended by the Senate) to the
National Assembly for a definitive vote (Article 45).
Therefore, unlike the United States, the two houses
are not equal in either power or influence.
In the normal legislative process, is a weak institution
that can do little more than delay legislation
approved by the government and passed by the
National Assembly. However, there are several
situations in which the accord of the Senate is
necessary. The most important is that any
constitutional amendment needs the approval of
either a simple or a three-fifths majority of senators
(Article 89). Some legislation of great importance—
such as the nuclear strike force, the organization of
military tribunals in cases involving high treason, and
the change in the system of departmental
representation—was enacted in spite of senatorial
dissent. Nonetheless, until 1981, relations between
the Senate and the National Assembly were relatively
harmonious. The real clash with the Senate over
legislation came during the years of Socialist
government between 1981 and 1986, when many key
bills were passed over the objections of the Senate.
However, leftist government bills that dismantled
some of the “law and order” measures enacted under
de Gaulle, Pompidou, and Giscard d’Estaing were
supported by the Senate. The upper house also
played an active role when it modified the
comprehensive decentralization statute passed by
the Socialist majority in the Assembly. Most of the
changes were accepted in joint committee. Of course,
now, with a left majority in both houses of
parliament, these conflicts can be avoided, at least
for the moment. Criticisms of the Senate as an
unrepresentative body, and proposals for its reform,
have come from Gaullists and Socialists alike. All of
these proposals for reforming the Senate have failed,
though some minor modifications in its composition
and mode of election have been passed.

French President
(The president by direct popul ar elections, the prime minister
by the majority support in the National Assembly)
• A dominant role for the president was ensured by a
constitutional amendment approved by referendum in
1962, which provided for the popular election of the
president.
• In September 2000, the presidential term was reduced to
five years—again by constitutional amendment— to
coincide with the normal five-year legislative term.
Under the Constitution, the president is given
limited but important powers:
• He can appeal to the people in two ways:
• With the agreement of the government or
Parliament, he can submit certain important legislation
to the electorate as a referendum.
• In addition, after consulting with the prime minister and
the parliamentary leaders, he can dissolve Parliament and
call for new elections.
• In case of grave threat “to the institutions of the Republic,”
the president also has the option of invoking emergency
powers. All of these powers have been used sparingly.
Emergency powers have been used only once, for
example, and dissolution was generally used by newly
elected presidents, when the presidential and legislative
terms were different.
• Since all powers proceeded from the president, the
government headed by the prime minister became
essentially an administrative body, until 1986, despite
constitutional stipulations to the contrary. The prime
minister’s chief function was to provide whatever direction
or resources were needed to implement the policies
conceived by the president. The primary task of the
government was to develop legislative proposals and
present an executive budget. In many respects, the
government’s position resembled that of the Cabinet in a
presidential regime such as the United States, rather than
that of a government in a parliamentary system such as
Britain and the earlier French republics.
• Regardless of the political circumstances, weekly meetings
of the Cabinet are chaired by the president and are
officially called the Council of Ministers. They are not
generally a forum for deliberation and confrontation.
• When Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958, he
wanted to provide France with firm leadership. He had
long favoured a presidential form of government similar to
that of the United States. Soon after his accession, a
constitution was devised for the new Fifth Republic. As
previously, there is a president and a premier,but whereas
the premier had been the main source of authority and
the president was a figure head, after 1958 the president
emerged with much increased powers. The document
carefully defined the powers of the legislature and
restricted its opportunities for defeating a government.
• Under the Constitution, the president is given limited but
important powers. He can appeal to the people in two
ways. With agreement of the government or Parliament,
he can submit certain important legislation to electorate
as a referendum. In addition, after consulting with the
prime minister and the parliamentary leaders, he can
dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. In case of
grave threat “to the institutions of the Republic,” the
president also has the option of invoking emergency
powers. All of these powers have been used sparingly.
Emergency powers have been used only once, for
example, and dissolution was generally used by newly
elected presidents, when the presidential and legislative
terms were different. (Figure 9.4) The exercise of
presidential powers in all their fullness was made possible,
however, not so much by the constitutional text as by a
political fact: Between 1958 and 1981, the president and
the prime minister derived their legitimacy from the same
Gaullist majority in the electorate— the president by
direct popular elections, the prime minister by the
majority support in the National Assembly. In 1981, the
electorate shifted its allegiance from the right to the left,
yet for the ensuing five years, the president and
Parliament were still on the same side of the political
divide. The long years of political affinity between the
holders of the two offices solidified and amplified
presidential powers and shaped constitutional practices in
ways that appear to have a lasting impact. From the very
beginning of the Fifth Republic, the president not only
formally appointed to Parliament the prime minister
proposed to him (as the presidents of the previous
republics had done, and as the Queen of England does),
but also chose the prime minister and the other Cabinet
ministers. In some cases, the president also dismissed a
prime minister who clearly enjoyed the confidence of a
majority in Parliament. Hence, the sometimes frequent
reshuffling of Cabinet posts and personnel in the Fifth
Republic is different from similar happenings in the Third
and Fourth Republics. In those systems, the changes
occurred in response to shifts in parliamentary support
and, frequently, in order to forestall, at least for a short
time, the government’s fall from power. In the present
system, the president or the prime minister— depending
on the circumstances—may decide to appoint, move, or
dismiss a Cabinet officer on the basis of his or her own
appreciation of the member’s worth (or lack of it). This
does not mean that considerations of the executive are
merely technical. Regardless of the political circumstances,
weekly meetings of the Cabinet are chaired by the
president and are officially called the Council of Ministers.
They are not generally a forum for deliberation and
confrontation. Although Cabinet decisions and decrees
officially emanate from the council, real decisions are in
fact made elsewhere. Thus, after the 1990s, the
relationship between the president and the prime minister
was more complicated than during the earlier period of
the Fifth Republic and varied according to the political
circumstances in which each had assumed office. The
prime minister has a parallel network for developing and
implementing policy decisions. The most important
method is the so-called interministerial meetings, regular
gatherings of high civil servants attached to various
ministries. The frequency of these sessions, chaired by a
member of the prime minister’s personal staff, reflects the
growing centralization of administrative and decision-
making authority within the office of the prime minister
and the growing importance of the prime minister’s policy
network in everyday policymaking within the executive. •
French socialists such as François Mitterrand, later to
become a president under the Fifth Republic, were elected
on the basis of their personal appeal and programme. On
election, they might join up with like-minded individuals,
but there was little party discipline within any
parliamentary groupings.
• Party fortunes have fluctuated throughout the years of the
more stable Fifth Republic, created by and for General de
Gaulle in 1958. In the first decade, the Gaullists dominated
political debate and a coalition of groups supporting de
Gaulle evolved. By the 1970s, the various socialist groups
were developing a more united front that was to enable
them to capture the presidency in 1981. Thereafter, the
influence of the traditional parties was challenged by the
growing prominence of new political forces, including the
extreme right National Front and the ecologists.
• As in most democracies, electoral success in France
continues to depend on organised political parties which
bring together people who share similar beliefs about how
society should develop and the policy approaches that are
necessary to achieve this common vision. However,

formed and maintained around backing for a particular

personality, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front
individuals often play an important part in French politics
and parties are sometimes
.
• The French party system remains weak and fragmented,
all the more confusing because of the multiplicity of
groups which contest elections, some of which are
transient, some more durable. It is in their interests to
stand, for under French electoral law registered parties
that put up at least fifty candidates are entitled to a state
subsidy. In this way,small parties and leaders use elections
as a means of attracting extra resources.
• Once the parliamentarians have passed a bill, it gains
substance only when it is enforced. But governments (and
higher civil servants) may show their reservations
regarding a bill by failing to produce the necessary
implementing regulations or ordinances. Thus the
government has
“denatured” acts of parliament by delaying, or omitting,
followup regulations on bills dealing with educational reforms,
birth control, prison reform, and the financing of local
government. • Gaullism is a unique phenomenon. Many
Frenchmen had shared General de Gaulle’s dislike of the Fourth
Republic. They objected to its central feature: a parliament that
was, in theory, all-powerful but in practice was immobilized
because it was faction ridden. They favored a regime with a
strong leader who would not be hampered by political parties
and interest groups; these were considered particularistic and
destructive interpositions between the national leadership and
the citizenry. Above all, Gaullists wanted France to reassert its
global role and rediscover its grandeur. Many of their early
supporters had been identified with the general as members of
his Free French entourage in London or had been active in the
Resistance. Others had worked with him when he headed the
first provisional government after the Liberation; still others
saw in him the embodiment of the “hero-savior.” Gaullism can
thus be described as nationalistic as well as “Caesarist” or
“Bonapartist,” in the sense that the legitimacy of the national
leader was to be based on popular appeal.

Political Parties:
By the early 1970s the French party system appeared to
have become permanently bipolarized into a right-wing
majority and a left-wing opposition
• Party fortunes have fluctuated throughout the years of the
more stable Fifth Republic, created by and for General de
Gaulle in 1958. In the first decade, the Gaullists dominated
political debate and a coalition of groups supporting de
Gaulle evolved. By the 1970s, the various socialist groups
were developing a more united front that was to enable
them to capture the presidency in 1981. Thereafter, the
influence of the traditional parties was challenged by the
growing prominence of new political forces, including the
extreme right National Front and the ecologists. Although
the old social and ideological cleavages still shape the
political scene, there have been substantial shifts in voting
preferences which have forced older parties to reconsider
their approaches, strategies and tactics. litical Culture of
France.
• The French party system remains weak and fragmented,
all the more confusing because of the multiplicity of
groups which contest elections, some of which are
transient, some more durable. It is in their interests to
stand, for under French electoral law registered parties
that put up at least fifty candidates are entitled to a state
subsidy.In this way,small parties and leaders use elections
as a means of attracting extra resources.
•

Political Culture:
There are three ways in which we can understand
political culture in France: History links present values to
those of the past, abstraction and symbolism identify a
way of thinking about politics, and distrust of
government represents a dominant value that crosses
class and generational lines.
• The Burden of History:
The French are so fascinated by their own history that
feuds of the past are constantly superimposed on the
conflicts of the present. This passionate use of historical
memories—from the meaning of the French Revolution
to the divisions between Vichy collaboration and the
Resistance during the Second World War— complicates
political decision making. In de Gaulle’s words, France
is
“weighed down by history.”
• Abstraction and Symbolism:
In the Age of Enlightenment, the monarchy left the
educated classes free to voice their views on many
topics, provided the discussion remained general and
abstract. The urge to discuss a wide range of problems,
even trivial ones, in broad philosophical terms has
hardly diminished. The exaltation of the abstract is
reflected in the significance attributed to symbols and
rituals. Rural communities that fought on opposite sides
in the French Revolution still pay homage to different
heroes two centuries later. Street demonstrations of the
left and the right take place at different historical
corners in Paris—the left in the Place de la Bastille, the
right at the statue of Joan of Arc. This tradition helps
explain why a nation united by almost universal
admiration for a common historical experience holds to
conflicting interpretations of its meaning.
• Distrust of Government and Politics:
The French have long shared the widespread
ambivalence of modern times that combines distrust of
government with high expectations for it. The French
citizens’ simultaneous distrust of authority and craving
for it feed on both individualism and a passion for
equality. Memories reaching back to the eighteenth
century justify a state of mind that is potentially, if
seldom overtly, insubordinate. Sudden change, rather
than gradual mutation, and dramatic conflicts that are
couched in the language of mutually exclusive, radical
ideologies are the experiences that excite the French at
historical moments. The French are accustomed to
thinking that no thorough change can ever occur except
by a major upheaval. Whether they originated within
the country or were brought about by international
conflict, most of France’s political crises have produced
a constitutional crisis. Each time, the triumphant forces
have codified their norms and philosophy, usually in a
comprehensive document. This explains why
constitutions have never played the role of fundamental
charters. French people invariably give the highest
confidence ratings to institutions closest to them—that
is, to local officials rather than to political parties or
national representatives.
• Religious and Anti-religious Traditions:
Until well into the twentieth century, the mutual
hostility between the religious and the secular was one
of the main features of the political culture. Since the
Revolution, it has divided society and political life at all
levels. Even now, there are important differences
between the political behavior of practicing Catholics
and that of nonbelievers. French Catholics historically
viewed the Revolution of 1789 as the work of satanic
men. Conversely, enemies of the Church became
militant in their opposition to Catholic forms and
symbols. In addition to secularization trends, important
changes have occurred within the Catholic subculture.
France is at once a Catholic country—65 percent of the
French population identified themselves as Catholic in
2012 (down from 87 percent in 1974)— and a country
that the Church itself considers “de- Christianized.” Only
5 percent of the population attended church regularly in
2012 Today, the vast majority of self-identified Catholics
reject some of the most important teachings of the
Church, including its positions on abortion, premarital
sex, and marriage of priests. Only 16 percent of
identified Catholics perceive the role of the Church as
important in political life. French Jews (numbering
about 600,000, or less than 1 percent of the population)
are generally well integrated into French society, and it
is not possible to speak of a Jewish vote. Protestants
(1.7 percent of the population and growing) have lived
somewhat apart. There are heavy concentrations in
Alsace, Paris, and some regions of central and
southeastern France. Islam is now France’s second
religion. There are 4 million to 4.5 million people of
Islamic origin in France. The growth of Muslim interests
has challenged the traditional French view of the
separation of church and state. Unlike Catholics and
Jews, who maintain their own schools, or Protestants,
who have supported the principle of secular state
schools, some Muslim groups insist on the right both to
attend state schools and to follow practices that
education authorities consider contrary to the French
tradition of secularism. Small numbers of Muslims have
challenged dress codes, school curriculums, and school
requirements and have more generally questioned
stronger notions of laïcité (antireligious atheism). In
response to this challenge, the French Parliament
passed legislation in 2004 that banned the wearing of
“ostentatious” religious symbols in primary and
secondary schools. Although the language is neutral
about religion, the law is widely seen as an attempt to
prevent the wearing of Islamic head scarves. The new
law was strongly supported by the French public, with
surprisingly strong support among Muslims.
• Class and Status:
Feelings about class differences shape a society’s authority
pattern and the style in which authority is exercised. The
French, like the English, are conscious of living in a society
divided into classes. But since equality is valued more highly in
France than in England, deference toward the upper classes is
far less developed, and resentful antagonism is widespread.6
The number of citizens who are conscious of belonging to a
social class is relatively high in France. About two-thirds of
those surveyed in 2010 claimed to belong to a social class.
Economic and social transformations have not eradicated
industrial and social conflict. Indeed, periodic strike movements
intensify class feelings and commitments to act. However, as
the number of immigrant workers among the least qualified
workers has grown, traditional class differences are crosscut by
a growing sense of racial and ethnic differences.

4. German
Constitution
Past Papers
 How the party system in France is different to that in
Germany? Discuss in detail.(2019)

Reading Material
Flow chart

A Brief History
 The worldwide depression of 1929 dealt the republic a
blow from which it could not recover. By , over a third
of the workforce was unemployed, and the Nazis became
the largest party in the parliament. The German public
wanted an effective government that would “do
something.” The democratic parties and their leaders
could not meet this demand.
The Third Reich and World War II (1933–45)
• The only party that thrived on this crisis was the Nazi
Party, under its leader, Adolf Hitler. The Nazis, or National
Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), was one of many
nationalist and völkisch (racialist) movements that had
emerged after World War I.
• Hitler was able to appeal to a wide variety of voters and
interests. He denounced the Versailles treaty that had
imposed harsh terms on Germany after World War I and
the “criminals” who signed it for Germany. To the
unemployed, he promised jobs in the rebuilding of the
nation (rearmament and public works). To business
interests, he represented a bulwark against communism.
To farmers and small businessmen, caught between big
labor and business, he promised recognition of their
proper position in German society and protection against
Marxist labor and “Jewish plutocrats.”
• In January 1933 President von Hindenburg asked Hitler to
form a government. The conservatives around the
president believed they could easily control and “handle”
Hitler once he had responsibility. Two months later, the
Nazis pushed an Enabling Act through the parliament that
essentially gave Hitler total power; the parliament,
constitution, and civil liberties were suspended. The will of
the Führer (leader) became the supreme law and
authority. By 1934, almost all areas of German life had
become “synchronized” (gleich, geschaltet) to the Nazi
pattern.
” Third Reich (1933–1939) were the “best that Germany
had experienced in this century. These were years of economic
growth and at least a surface prosperity. Unemployment was
virtually eliminated; inflation was checked; and the economy,
fueled by expenditures for rearmament and public works,
boomed. That during these “good years” thousands of Germans
were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered in concentration
camps, and hundreds of thousands of German Jews were
systematically persecuted, was apparently of minor importance
to most citizens in comparison with the economic and policy
successes of the regime.
• Hitler in his autobiography, Mein Kampf, written in the
early 1920s, repeated in print his oft-spoken conviction
that Jews were not humans, nor even subhumans, but
rather “disease-causing bacilli” in the body of the nation
that must be exterminated.
The Federal Republic
• Federal Republic’s development began with the collapse of
the East German communist regime in 1989-90 and the
admission of the five East German states into the
federation in 1990. These dramatic changes were part of
the larger disintegration of communism throughout
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and are
closely connected with the reform policies of former
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. No Eastern European
communist regime was more opposed to democratic
reform than East Germany because, unlike Poland,
Czechoslovakia, or Hungary, East Germany was not a
nation.
• By October 1989, when Gorbachev arrived in East Berlin to
commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the regime, an
additional 60,000 East Germans had departed. Gorbachev
told the aging and ailing East German leader, Erich
Honecker, that the time for reform had come and that “life
punishes those who arrive too late.” His warning fell on
deaf ears.
Federalism:
Germany, unlike Britain, France, Italy or Sweden, is a
federal state in which certain governmental functions are
reserved to the constituent Länder (states). Each of the
sixteen states has a constitution and parliament. The
states have fundamental responsibility for education, the
mass media, and internal security and order (police power.
 Government Structure

POLITICAL POWER IN the Federal Republic is fragmented

and dispersed among a wide variety of institutions and
elites. There is no single locus of power. At the national
level, there are three major decision-making structures: 1)
the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament; (2) the
Federal Council (Bundesrat), which represents the states
and is the German equivalent of an upper house; and (3)
the federal government, or executive (the chancellor and
cabinet). In addition, the sixteen states that constitute the
Federal Republic play important roles, especially in the
areas of education and internal security. These states also
have a direct influence on national policymaking through
the Bundesrat, which is composed of delegates from each
of the states. The Federal Constitutional Court, which has
the power of judicial review, has also become an
increasingly powerful institution. Also, at the national
level, a federal president, indirectly elected but with little
independent responsibility for policy, serves as the
ceremonial head of state and is expected to be a unifying
or integrating figure, above the partisan political struggle.

1) The Bundestag
Constitutionally, the center of the policymaking
process is the Bundestag, a legislative assembly
consisting of about 660 deputies who are elected
at least every four years.
The constitution assigns to the Bundestag the
primary responsibility for (1) legislation, (2) the
election and control of the government, (3) the
supervision of the bureaucracy and military, and
(4) the selection of judges to the Federal
Constitutional Court.
The Bundestag, similar to other parliaments, has
the responsibility to elect and control the
government. After each national election, a new
parliament is convened, with its first order of
business the election of the federal chancellor.
The control function is, of course, much more
complex and occupies a larger share of the
chamber’s time. Through the procedure, adopted
from English parliamentary practice, of the
Question Hour, a member may make direct
inquiries of the government either orally or in
writing about a particular problem. A further
control procedure is the parliament’s right to
investigate governmental activities and to demand
the appearance of any cabinet or state official. The
Bundestag also scrutinizes the actions of the
government. The most common method of
oversight is the “question hour” adopted from the
British House of Commons.
The constructive no-confidence vote has been
attempted only twice—and has succeeded only
once. In 1982, a majority replaced Chancellor
Schmidt with a new chancellor, Helmut Kohl.

2) The Bundesrat (Federal

Council)
The Bundesrat represents the interests of the states in
the national policymaking process. It is composed of
sixty-eight members drawn from the sixteen state
governments. Each state, depending on its population,
is entitled to from three to six members. Most
Bundesrat sessions are attended by delegates from the
state governments and not the actual formal members,
the state-level cabinet ministers. Bundesrat has
concentrated on the administrative aspects of
policymaking and has rarely initiated legislative
proposals. Since the states implement most national
legislation, the Bundesrat has tended to examine
proposed programs from the standpoint of how they
can be best administered at the state level. The
Bundesrat has thus not been an institution in the
partisan political spotlight.The importance of the
constituent states in the policy process has increased as
the scope of their veto power in the Bundesrat has
expanded. At present, almost two-thirds of all
legislation is subject to a Bundesrat veto.
3) The Chancellor and Cabinet
The Federal Republic has a dual executive, but the Basic
Law gives substantially greater formal powers to the
federal chancellor (Bundeskanzler) as the chief
executive. Moreover, chancellors have dominated the
political process and symbolized the federal
government by their personalization of power. The
chancellor plays such a central role in the political
system that some observers describe the German
system as a “chancellor democracy.”
• Chancellors usually have led their own party, directing
party strategy and heading the party slate at elections.
• Another source of the chancellor’s authority is control
over the Cabinet. The federal government consists of
fourteen departments, each headed by a minister. The
Cabinet ministers are formally appointed, or dismissed, by
the federal president on the recommendation of the
chancellor (Bundestag approval is not necessary).
• The chief executive in the Federal Republic is the
chancellor. The powers of this office place it somewhere
between those of a strong president in the United States
and the prime minister in the British parliamentary
system.
• The power of the chancellor in the Federal Republic
derives largely from the following sources: the
constitution, the party system, and the precedent
established by the first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer.
• The constitution makes the chancellor responsible for
determining the main guidelines of the government’s
policies. This places him above his ministers, although they
are in turn responsible for policy within their specific area.
The chancellor also essentially “hires and fires” cabinet
ministers.
• If the parliament wants the removal of a particular cabinet
member, it must vote no confidence in the whole
government, including the chancellor. Bringing down the
government via a vote of no confidence has, in turn,
become more difficult in the postwar system because of
the constructive vote of no confidence provision. This
means that a parliamentary majority against an incumbent
chancellor does not suffice to bring down the government;
the opposition must also have a majority in favor of a new
chancellor before the chancellor and cabinet are
dismissed.
Formal Policymaking Procedures
 Legislation:
Most legislation is drafted in the ministries of the national
government and submitted to the parliament for action.
Two additional, but relatively minor, sources of legislative
proposals are the state governments and the parliament
itself. State governments may submit national legislation
via the Bundesrat (Federal Council), but at least six states
(a majority) must support the bill. If at least percent
(about thirty-five) of the parliamentary deputies cosponsor
a bill, it also enters the legislative process.

The Judiciary:
Germany is a law- and court-minded society. In addition to
local, regional, and state courts for civil and criminal cases,
corresponding court systems specialize in labor, administrative,
tax, and social security cases. On a per capita basis, there are
about nine times as many judges in the Federal Republic as in
the United States. The German legal system, like that of most of
its Western European neighbors, is based on code law rather
than case, judge-made, or common law. These German legal
codes, influenced by the original Roman codes and the French
Napoleonic Code, were reorganized and in some cases
rewritten after the founding of the empire in 1871.
1) The ordinary courts, which hear criminal cases and most
legal disputes, are integrated into a unitary system. The states
administer the courts at the local and state levels. The highest
ordinary court, the Federal Court of Justice, is at the national
level. All courts apply the same national legal codes.
2)Administrative courts hears cases in specialized areas. One
court deals with administrative complaints against government
agencies, one handles tax matters, another resolves claims
involving social programs, and one deals with labor–
management disputes. Like the rest of the judicial system,
these specialized courts exist at both the state and the federal
levels. 3) The Basic Law created a third element of the
judiciary: the independent Constitutional Court. This court
reviews the constitutionality of legislation, mediates disputes
between levels of government, and protects the constitutional
and democratic order. This is an innovation for the German
legal system because it places one law, the Basic Law, above all
others. This also implies limits on the decision-making power of
the parliament and the judicial interpretations of lower court
judges. Because of the importance of the Constitutional Court,
its sixteen members are selected for twelve-year terms in equal
numbers by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. The Constitutional
Court provides another check on the potential excesses of
government and gives citizens additional protection for their
rights. It is the third pillar of German democracy.
 The Federal Constitutional Court:
The practice of judicial review—the right of courts to
examine and strike down legislation emanating from
popularly elected legislatures if it is considered contrary to
the constitution—is alien to a codified legal system.
Nonetheless, especially under the influence of American
Occupation authorities and the tragic record of the courts
during the Third Reich, the framers of the postwar
constitution created a Federal Constitutional Court and
empowered it to consider any alleged violations of the
constitution, including legislative acts. Similar courts were
also established at the state level.

Electoral System:
Generally, there are two basic procedures in Western
democracies for converting votes into legislative seats: a
proportional system in which a party’s share of legislative
mandates is proportional to its popular vote, and a
plurality, or “winner take all” system, under which “losing”
parties and candidates (and their voters) receive no
representation. Proportional systems are usually favored
by smaller parties because under “pure” proportionality, a
party with even a fraction of a percent of the vote would
receive parliamentary representation.
The German electoral law has elements of both plurality
and proportionality, but is essentially a proportional
system. One-half of the delegates to parliament are
elected on a plurality basis from 328 districts; the other
half are chosen on the proportional principle from state
(Land) lists. The voter thus receives two ballots—one for a
district candidate, the other for a party. But the second
ballot is by far the more important. The proportion of the
vote a party receives on the second ballot determines
ultimately how many seats it will have in parliament
because the district conte//sts won by the party’s
candidates are deducted from the total due it on the basis
of the second ballot vote.
Political Parties in the German System
• Political parties in Germany deserve special emphasis
because they are such important actors in the political
process, as much as or more than in other European
democracies. Some observers describe the political system
as government for the parties, by the parties, and of the
parties.
• The Basic Law is unusual because it specifically refers to
political parties (the U.S. Constitution does not). Because
the German Empire and the Third Reich suppressed
political parties, the Basic Law guarantees their legitimacy
and their right to exist if they accept the principles of
democratic government.
• The parties’ centrality in the political process appears in
several ways. There are no direct primaries that would
allow the public to select party representatives in
Bundestag elections. Instead, a small group of official party
members or a committee appointed by the membership
nominates the district candidates. State party conventions
select the party-list candidates. Thus, the leadership can
select list candidates and order them on the list. This
power can be used to reward faithful party supporters and
discipline party mavericks; placement near the top of a
party list virtually ensures election, and low placement
carries little chance of a Bundestag seat.
• Political parties also dominate the election process. Most
voters view the candidates merely as party representatives
rather than as autonomous political figures. Even the
district candidates are elected primarily because of their
party ties.
• Bundestag, state, and European election campaigns are
financed by the government; the parties receive public
funds for each vote they get. The government provides
free television time for a limited number of campaign
advertisements, and these are allocated to the parties, not
to the individual candidates. Government funding for the
parties also continues between elections to help them
perform their informational and educational functions as
prescribed in the Basic Law.
5. Turkish
Political
System
Past Papers
• Critically evaluate the role of Military in Turkish Politics;.
(2020)
• Critically analyze the role of military in the Turkish politics.
(2019)
• Discuss the features of Turkish model of democracy
keeping the distinguished position of the armed forces in
the Turkish politics. (2016)
• How Grand National Assembly of Turkey is elected?
Discuss its powers and functions. (2015 )
• Elaborate the secular aspect of Turkish Constitution and
objectively analyze its impact on Turkish society. (2014)
• Discuss the salient features of 1982 Constitution of
Turkey. (2013)
• How Grand National Assembly of Turkey is elected?
Discuss its powers and functions. (2011)
• The predominance of the armed forces in the Turkish
politics. (note,2010)
• How political parties organize and function in accordance
with Turkish Constitution? Also enlist five major parties
with names of their founding fathers. (2009)
• Analyze the role of Mustafa Kamal Ataturk as the first
President of Turkish Republic with special reference to
‘’Six principle of Kemalism’’ to modernize Turkey on
Western pattern. (2008)
• Discuss Six principle of Kemalism in Turkish Political
system. (2007)
• Discuss ideological foundations of Political System of
Turkish Republic. (2006)
• Mustafa Kamal’s Political philosophy as Ideological
foundations of Turkish political System. (2002)
• Evaluate the role political parties in Turkey. (2004)  Role
of Mustafa Kamal in building up modern Turkey. (2005)
Reading Material
A Brief History
• The 1960 coup, which was to be the first of three in
Turkey’s modern history, was unusual insofar as it was
neither organized nor led by senior military officials.
Although it is sometimes depicted as round one in a
continuing grand conflict between a secularist military and
an overreaching Islamic government, the actual narrative is
more complex.
• In creating what is known as the Second Republic, the 1961
Constitution had two primary objectives: generally to check
the ability of a single party to completely dominate the
system, and—more specifically—to protect the
independence of the armed forces from such a regime.
• Introducing more checks and balances into the system, the
new constitution created a two house legislature,
established a constitutional court and provided a relatively
liberalized system for the independence of voluntary
associations. Perhaps the most important change, from a
political perspective, was the introduction of proportional
representation in the electoral system that made it
significantly more difficult for a single party to dominate the
legislature.
• Ideological parties of both the left and right grew in
strength as did a number of extra-parliamentary
movements, some of them violent, working outside the
system. Escalating clashes between right and left, Turks and
Kurds, Sunni Muslims against Alevis, were exacerbated by
the fluid politics of coalition government.
• The thousands of patronage jobs available to each new
coalition of parties in the cabinet meant that what was at
stake “was not just ideology, but work on roads, waterways,
forestry, and even postings to the police.” With the
economy declining and a new crisis brewing over
GreekTurkish claims on the island of Cyprus, “Turkey was
becoming ungovernable.”
• A second military coup appeared imminent, yet the armed
forces were themselves seriously divided. Rumors of a
leftwing coup led by a group of junior officers united the
generals and moved them to force the Demirel government
to resign. Not coincidentally, five generals, one admiral and
thirty-five colonels were relieved of their positions. A
caretaker cabinet of technicians was installed.
• The 1971 coup scrambled the historic alliances between
political, bureaucratic and military elites that had formed
the backbone of Kemalist power. In purging its leftist
officers, the armed forces found strong allies among more
conservative, strongly anti-communist Islamists, but “the
coherence of the old Center, which had been built around
the coalition of the public bureaucracy, universities and
secularist intellectuals, and the military started to show
signs of breaking apart.”
• Following 1973, when civil government was fully restored,
the fractured parties found it difficult to form stable
governments or maintain order. Unlike the left–right
conflicts of the Cold War, the violence of the 1970s involved
religious conflicts between Sunnis and Alevis, linguistic and
cultural conflicts involving Kurds and Turkish nationalists,
and even clashes between tribal groups. The legislature
reflected this social fragmentation with a dozen different
coalitions shuffling in and out of Ankara hatever ideologies
might have guided the parties in their origins, opportunism
and patronage ruled the roost. When the president’s term
expired in 1979 the parliament took over 100 ballots
without being able to name a successor.
• A new military venture in Cyprus, instead of unifying the
country, divided it further and antagonized the United
States and Europe whose economic sanctions further
destabilized an already weak economy.
• The military coup of September 1980 was far more
carefully planned and comprehensive than previous efforts,
and was organized directly by the high command. Similarly
to the first military takeover (in 1951) it is generally
classified as a “guardian” coup, designed not to change
particular policies but to put a flailing political system back
on track. Indeed its blending of ultranationalism,
anticommunism and moderate Islamism came to involve
what one author describes as the most ambitious attempt
at political engineering in the post-Kemal era.
The constitution that emerged was designed to strengthen the
executive branch and in particular the role of the military in the
National Security Council. As with many so-called
semipresidential systems, it provided a rather ambiguous
blending of parliamentary government in which a separate
executive (the president) had a significant, but vaguely defined,
ability to intervene.
• It is generally argued that the basic philosophy of the 1982
Constitution was to protect the state and its authority
against its citizens rather than protecting individuals against
the encroachments of the state authority.
• In essence, it created a one-house parliamentary
government in which the prime minister and his or her
cabinet would normally govern; but in which the president
—elected by the assembly for a seven-year term— could
select the prime minister, appoint members of the
Constitutional Court and other high officials, rule by decree
in emergencies, appoint the military chief of staff and chair
the National Security Council.
• In order to curb the fragmentation of the party system that
had made the second republic virtually ungovernable, the
electoral law required a party to receive at least 10 percent
of the vote in order to be represented in the General
Assembly. The old parties were abolished and many of their
leaders banned. In the first post-coup election, only three
parties were allowed to compete with the only non-military
party—Turgut Özal’s Motherland Party—and winning a
substantial plurality
• Perhaps the most significant political development of this
period was the rise of the Islamist Prosperity Party (Refah).
Although its roots could be traced to an earlier Islamist
Party that was banned by the military in 1991, Refah
became the first openly religious party to make a major
electoral showing in municipal elections, and it
subsequently outperformed all the other parties in the 1995
elections to the National Assembly, winning 28.7 percent of
the seats.
• The attempts of the two secular parties to form a coalition
government dragged out for months, until one agreed to a
power-sharing arrangement with Refah that was based, not
so much on policy, as on an agreement on the part of the
Islamist leaders not to investigate corruption charges
against its new coalition partner. Satisfied with seats in the
cabinet and a slice of the patronage pie, Refah’s coalition
partner gave the newcomers a lot of rope—which they
quickly used to hang themselves. Prime Minister Erbakan’s
disastrous visit to Libya,33 heavy-handed patronage
appointments favoring Islamists, ties with some rather
shady underground militant groups and so on, combined
with a series of other largely symbolic attempts to burnish
its Islamic credentials, led to what is sometimes called the
“fourth coup” in which, prodded by the army, the
Constitutional Court shut down the party. Its leader
resigned and a series of new coalitions were formed in
which, as Findley puts it, “the governments represented the
military more than the electorate.

Recep Erdogan
• The chief state prosecutor asked the Constitutional Court to
close down Erbakan’s party, which it did later in the year
after Erbakan had already resigned. Although badly
crippled, Erbakan’s followers formed a new party which was
also dissolved, seriously dividing its remaining supporters
and resulting in the creation of two parties: the short-lived
Felicity Party and, more significantly, the Adalet ve Kalkınma
Partisi (AKP—Justice and Development Party, with meaning
white or clean in Turkish) led by Recep Erdog ˘an and
Abdullah Gül under the slogan “we have changed’’.
• While a series of weak coalition governments, strongly
influenced by the National Security Council, bumped from
one crisis to another, Erdogan—now Mayor of Istanbul—
was becoming a national figure.
• Although he had been imprisoned in 1998 for inciting
religious intolerance, and was still banned from seeking
national office in 2002, there was little doubt that Erdogan
was a major player in Turkish politics.
Turning Point in Modern Turkish
Politics was Reached with the
2002 Elections:
• AKP became the first party in decades to win an outright
majority in the National Assembly. Its victory was no doubt
a protest vote against the squabbling, corruption and
indecisiveness of its predecessors.
• Indeed it has become the first party in modern Turkey to
have won outright majorities in the National Assembly in
three consecutive elections (2002, 2007 and 2011). After a
constitutional amendment was passed allowing Erdogan to
become prime minister, Gül stepped out of that role and
was elected president in 2007.
• In that election, the AKP not only became the first
incumbent party to increase its parliamentary majority, but
its popular vote actually increased by almost 15 percent.
And its margins increased by still more in 2011.
• In 2007, when the legislature met to elect a successor to the
retiring president, secularist deputies boycotted the
meeting leaving it short of a quorum. The Constitutional
Court intervened in 2008 to rule Gül’s election invalid.
• The AKP’s response was to put a constitutional amendment
on the ballot calling for direct election of the president. It
passed, Gül won handily, and the court did not challenge. 
Working with the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund, the party’s economic policies produced
stunningly high rates of economic growth that, until a falloff
in 2014, averaged nearly 8 percent a year even as Europe
and the United States were mired in recession.
• The Erdogan government, moreover, moved more quickly
than its predecessors to meet EU conditions for admission,
including the abolishment of capital punishment and
restructuring the role of the military in the government.
Following EU guidelines, it also adopted a law, albeit limited
in scope, for Kurdish-language broadcasting and education.
Less frequently noted than the party’s embracing of the EU
was its rejection of an Islamic Common Market because it
would not, in Erdogan’s words, “base relations on ethnic
and religious roots.”

The AKP set out to become a “mass” rather than a

“cadre” party, that is, a party based on a large
membership and run more from the bottom up rather
than from the top down. It retains avery large and
“efficient network of party activists, militants and
volunteers at the grassroots,” with perhaps as many as
four million members.43 Yet its original promise of
“transparency, participation and collective thinking,”
embodied in the party’s internal rules, soon gave way to
the same kind of highly centralized leadership that
traditionally has prevailed in Turkish party politics. Every
post in the party, from the national to provincial and local,
is filled from the top down, and Erdog ˘an, as the party
leader, has the right to dissolve local organizations that
don’t meet his standards.

The Changing Role of the

Military:
• The great paradox of Turkish politics is that the military has
been at once the key protector of democracy and the
greatest barrier to its success. It was the military that
created the modern state following the shambles of
Turkey’s World War I defeat. Despite, or perhaps because
of the fact that the military has removed four elected
governments in the past fifty-five years, it has consistently
been evaluated in the polls as the country’s most popular
institution. Perhaps because it always returned to its
barracks after replacing governments that were, in most
cases, hopelessly deadlocked, incompetent or corrupt (and
sometimes all of these things), it has never really been
perceived as anti-democratic.
• Thus until very recently the military constituted an
autonomous state-within-in-a-state that was not only free
to set its own policies and budgets, but to make political
statements on a wide variety of issues outside its
jurisdiction but backed with the implicit threat of active
intervention.
• “Democratic consolidation,” it is generally agreed, “requires
a strategy by which military influence over nonmilitary
issues and functions is gradually reduced and civilian
oversight and control is eventually established over matters
of broad military and national security policy.”52 That
process did not begin in Turkey until the rules of
engagement with the EU gave the government the leverage
it needed to change the rules of civil–military relations. The
Accession Partnership Documents and subsequent EU
reports focused on four areas: (1) the composition and
role of the National Security Council; (2) control over the
military budget; (3) the respective roles of civilian and
military courts; and (4) military representatives on various
civilian boards.
• Considerable progress has been made in all of these areas,
particularly the first two: military courts are now limited to
trying cases involving members of the military, and
members of the military committing civilian crimes can now
be tried in civilian courts.
• The National Security Council was created in 1960 and
given an expanded role by the military junta that controlled
the government after the 1980 coup. It was a key
component of the Cold War-inspired “national security
regime” that placed “state authority, national unity and
secularism … within a threat framework.” Armed with the
sole authority to define threat situations.
• Despite the superficial reforms of the past decade, actual
civilian control over military expenditures exists only in a
limited sense. Roughly a quarter of the military’s funds
continue to come through four channels that are not part of
its formal budget.
• The judiciary long remained the key protector of the old
order, but working with Fethullah Gülen, the AKP began
slowly to replace retiring secularist judges and prosecutors
with new recruits drawn from religious backgrounds and
schools. The 2010 “packing” of the Constitutional Court
(increasing its membership from 11 to 17) weakened its
inclination to check the government.
• In addition, the government has gradually been changing
the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors, which
actually makes the key appointments to lower judicial
positions.
The AKP has used the leverage of EU conditionality to
enact reforms that have strengthened its own position
and weakened that of its enemies, but the fact that these
reforms have benefitted the party does not mean that
they are not real or needed. Yet within Turkey and among
outside observers—including some very careful scholars
— the sincerity of the AKP’s reformism is not trusted. The
idea that the clash between Islam and the secular state is
inevitable is deeply ingrained. Since assuming the
presidency, Erdogan has increasingly fanned these flames.
His November 2014 remarks praising motherhood and
bluntly denying that women are equal to men, and a
December speech calling for a return to teaching the
Ottoman language and Arabic script in the public schools
have deepened the divide.

The Main Features of 1982

Constitution
• The apparent reasons for the military coup were anarchy,
terrorism, separatist activities, increasingly bad economic
conditions, and the incapability of the government to cope
with all these problems.
• Accepted within the Assembly, and was accepted by the
people by a referendum on December 7th, 1982.
• The 1982 Constitution was composed of a Preamble and
seven parts. These parts are titled as follows: first,
"General Principles", second, "Basic Rights and Duties",
third, "Fundamental Organs of the Republic", fourth,
"Financial and Economic Provisions" and the reminder,
"Miscellaneous Provisions".
MODERNITY IN THE EARLY TURKISH
REPUBLIC

KEMALISM:
Ataturk's 15-year rule was marked by a series of
radical political and social reforms that transformed
Turkey into a new era of modernization with civil and
political equality for sectarian minorities and women.
As widely accepted, however, Kemalism “never
became a coherent, all embracing ideology, but can
be described as a set of opinions which were never
defined in any detail”. The ‘set of opinions’ that are
considered to form Kemalism has been fixed in six
principles or arrows, each signifying a target and
characteristic of the reforms and was claimed to
complement each other.
6 arrows have become the emblem of the Republican
People’s Party which was founded in 1923 by Mustafa
Kemal [Atatürk] and now the main opposition party.
These are republicanism, secularism/laicism,
nationalism, populism, etatism / statism and
reformism / transformationism. They were
announced in their complete form in the program of
Republican People’s Party in 1931 and incorporated
into the constitution in 1937, these principles were
considered to form the official ideology of the Turkish
nation-state.
Republicanism was to be one of the arrows
demonstrating anti-monarchic nature of the new regime
and its popular base. Kemalist secularization/laicization:
Abolishment of the Caliphate, religious schools were closed; a
unified national and secular system of education was
introduced. At the same time, religious office and the Ministry
of Religious Affairs were replaced by the Religious Directorate.
Interpretation and execution of an enlightened version of
Islamic religion was the main drive behind the establishment
of this Directorate. A year later, in 1925, the religious shrines
and dervish contents, which had vital importance in the daily
life of the Muslims, were closed down. In addition, traditional
headgear of the Ottomans, fez, was prohibited; instead, a
symbol of being western, hat, was promoted. Adoption of the
European calendar, the Swiss civil code, Italy’s penal code and
Latin alphabet followed these. All these were the requirement
for being civilized, particularly secular/laic. As still one of the
most complicated and debated Kemalist principles,
secularization/laicization thus targeted mainly three areas. First
target was fields of state, education and law. These areas had
been the traditional strongholds of the institutionalized Islam of
the ulema (higher religious class) in the Ottoman Empire.
Secondly, religious symbols; and finally, social life and popular
Islam were subjected to fundamental change.
Science, according to Mustafa Kemal, was the ‘truest guide to
life’. For this reason, Turks had to learn to think in scientific
manner. As a matter of fact, positivist ideology was the
intellectual basis of the Turkish Revolution.
Nationalism:
Nationalism of the new regime is also discernible in the
principle of étatism/statism. Étarism was adopted as an
economic policy following the Great Depression of 1929 and
has generally been considered to mean as state intervention
for economic progress and the creation of a national economy.
However, étatist understanding can not be confined to
economic sphere. As vision of economic progress laid in railway
building, banking and state-led industrial investments which
were given the name of ancient civilizations that were claimed
to be Turkish in the Historical Thesis such as Sümerbank (Sümer
means Sumerian) and Etibank (Eti means Hittite), this principle
came to represent economic aspect of the nationalist ideology.
This vision also entailed the creation of a national bourgeoisie
and thus targeted refinement of economic enterprises and
commerce from non-Turkish elements, specifically the
nonMuslim minorities. In the context of 1930s, étatist principle
actually signified state domination in political, economic, social
and cultural spheres as well as an instrument of national
mobilization effort together with populism.

Provisions relating to political

parties
 A. Forming parties, membership and withdrawal from
membership in a party
(ARTICLE 68)
Citizens have the right to form political parties and duly
join and withdraw from them. One must be over
eighteen years of age to become a member of a party.
Political parties are indispensable elements of
democratic political life. Political parties shall be formed
without prior permission, and shall
1) pursue their activities in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Constitution and laws. The
statutes and programs, as well as the
2) activities of political parties shall not be contrary to
the independence of the State, its indivisible integrity
with its territory and nation, human rights, the
principles of equality and rule of law, sovereignty of
the nation, the principles of the democratic and
secular republic;
3) they shall not aim to promote or establish class or
group dictatorship or dictatorship of any kind, nor
shall they incite citizens to crime.
4) Judges and prosecutors, members of higher judicial
organs including those of the Court of Accounts, civil
servants in public institutions and organizations,
other public servants who are not considered to be
labourers by virtue of the services they perform,
members of the armed forces and students who are
not yet in higher education, shall not become
members of political parties.
5) The membership of the teaching staff at higher
education to political parties is regulated by law. This
law shall not allow those members to assume
responsibilities outside the central organs of the
political parties and it also sets forth the regulations
which the teaching staff at higher education
institutions shall observe as members of political
parties in the higher education institutions. The
principles concerning the membership of students at
higher education to political parties are regulated by
law.
6) The State shall provide the political parties with
adequate financial means in an equitable manner.
The principles regarding aid to political parties, as
well as collection of dues and donations are regulated
by law.
Principles to be observed by political parties
(ARTICLE 69)
1)The activities, internal regulations and operation
of political parties shall be in line with
democratic principles.
2)The application of these principles is regulated
by law.
3)Political parties shall not engage in commercial
activities. The income and expenditure of
political parties shall be consistent with their
objectives. The application of this rule is
regulated by law. The auditing of acquisitions,
revenue and expenditure of political parties by
the Constitutional Court in terms of conformity
to law as well as the methods of audit and
sanctions to be applied in case of inconformity
to law shall be indicated in law. The
Constitutional Court shall be assisted by the
Court of Accounts in performing its task of
auditing. The judgments rendered by the
Constitutional Court because of the auditing
shall be final.
4)The dissolution of political parties shall be
decided finally by the Constitutional Court after
the filing of a suit by the office of the Chief
Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation.
The permanent dissolution of a political party shall
be decided when it is established that the statute
and program of the political party violate the
provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 68.
The decision to dissolve a political party
permanently owing to activities violating the
provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 68
may be rendered only when the Constitutional
Court determines that the party in question has
become a centre for the execution of such
activities. A political party shall be deemed to
become the centre of such actions only when such
actions are carried out intensively by the members
of that party or the situation is shared implicitly or
explicitly by the grand congress, general
chairpersonship or the central decision-making or
administrative organs of that party or by the
group’s general meeting or group executive board
at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey or when
these activities are carried out in determination by
the above- mentioned party organs directly.
Instead of dissolving it permanently in accordance
with the above-mentioned paragraphs, the
Constitutional Court may rule the concerned party
to be deprived of state aid wholly or in part with
respect to intensity of the actions brought before
the court.
A party which has been dissolved permanently
shall not be founded under another name. The
members, including the founders of a political
party whose acts or statements have caused the
party to be dissolved permanently shall not be
founders, members, directors or supervisors in any
other party for a period of five years from the date
of publication of the Constitutional Court’s final
decision with its justification for permanently
dissolving the party in the Official Gazette. Political
parties that accept aid from foreign states,
international institutions and persons and
corporate bodies of non-Turkish nationality shall
be dissolved permanently.
The foundation and activities of political parties,
their supervision and dissolution, or their deprival
of state aid wholly or in part as well as the election
expenditures and procedures of the political parties
and candidates, are regulated by law in accordance
with the above-mentioned principles.

President of the Republic

 A. Nomination and election
ARTICLE 101
The President of the Republic shall be elected directly
by the public from among Turkish citizens who are
eligible to be deputies, who are over forty years of age
and who have completed higher education.
The President of the Republic’s term of office shall be
five years. A person may be elected as President of the
Republic for two terms at most.
Political party groups, political parties which have
recieved more than five percent of the valid votes in
sum alone or jointly in the latest parliamentary
elections, or at least a hundred thousand electorates
may nominate a candidate for Presidency of the
Republic. If a deputy is elected as the President of the
Republic, his/her membership of the Grand National
Assembly of Turkey shall cease. In presidential elections
conducted by universal suffrage, the candidate who
receives the absolute majority of the valid votes cast
shall be elected President of the Republic. If such a
majority cannot be obtained in the first ballot, the
second ballot shall be held on the second Sunday
following this ballot. The first two top rated candidates
in first ballot shall run for the second, and the candidate
who receives the majority of the valid votes cast shall be
elected President of the Republic.
B. Duties and powers
ARTICLE 104

President of the Republic is the head of the State.

Executive power belongs to the President of the
Republic
• represent the Republic of Turkey and the unity of the
Turkish Nation.
• ensure the implementation of the Constitution
• delivers the opening speech of the Grand National
Assembly of Turkey
• gives message to the Assembly about domestic and
foreign policy of the country.
• promulgates laws
• returns laws for reconsideration to the Grand
National Assembly.
• lodges an action for annulment with the
Constitutional Court for the whole or certain
provisions of enacted laws.
• appoints and dismisses Vice-Presidents of the
Republic and ministers.
• appoints and dismisses high level State officials, and
regulates the procedures and principles relating to
the appointment of these, by presidential decrees.
• accredits representatives of the Turkish State to
foreign states and receives the representatives
• ratifies and promulgates international treaties
• holds a referendum
• determines the national security policies and takes
the necessary measures.
• represents the Office of Commander-in-Chief of the
Turkish Armed Forces on behalf of the Grand
National Assembly of Turkey.
• decides on the use of the Turkish Armed Forces.
• commutes or revokes the sentences.
• President of the Republic may issue by-laws in order
to ensure the implementation of laws.
• President of the Republic shall also exercise powers
of election and appointment.
Criminal liability of the President of the Republic
• Parliamentary Investigation may be requested
claiming that the President of the Republic commits a
crime through a motion tabled by an absolute
majority of the total number of members of the
Grand National Assembly.
• Where a decision to launch an investigation is made,
the investigation shall be conducted by a committee
of
fifteen members, chosen by lot, for each political party
in the Assembly
• Following its submission to the Office of the Speaker,
the report shall be distributed within ten days and
debated in the Plenary within ten days after its
distribution
• The President of the Republic regarding whom an
investigation is decided to be launched cannot decide
to hold elections
Vice-presidents of the Republic, acting
president of the Republic and ministers
• After being elected, the President of the Republic may
appoint one or more Vice-Presidents of the Republic
• Vice-Presidents of the Republic and ministers shall be
appointed from among those eligible to be elected as
deputies and dismissed by the President of the Republic..
• Vice-Presidents of the Republic and ministers shall be
accountable to the President of the Republic.
State Supervisory Council
• The State Supervisory Council which was established
under the Office of the Presidency of the Republic, with
the purpose of ensuring the lawfulness, regular and
efficient functioning and improvement of administration,
conduct all administrative investigations, inquiries,
investigations and inspections
of all public bodies and organizations, all enterprises in
which those public bodies and organizations share more
than half of the capital, public professional
organizations, employers’ associations and labour
unions at all levels, and public welfare associations and
foundations, upon the request of the President of the
Republic. Judicial organs are outside the jurisdiction of
the State Supervisory Council. The Chairperson and the
members of the State Supervisory Council shall be
appointed by the President of the Republic
Offices of Commander-in-Chief and Chief of the
General Staff
The Office of Commander-in-Chief is inseparable from
the spiritual existence of the Grand National Assembly
of Turkey and is represented by the President of the
Republic. The President of the Republic shall be
responsible to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey
for national security and for the preparation of the
armed forces for the defence of the country.
National Security Council
The National Security Council shall be composed of Vice-
Presidents of the Republic, ministers of Justice, National
Defence, Internal Affairs, and Foreign Affairs, the Chief
of the General Staff, the commanders of the Land, Naval
and Air Forces under the chairpersonship of the
President of the Republic. Depending on the particulars
of the agenda, ministers and other persons concerned
may be invited to meetings of the Council and their
views heard. The National Security Council shall submit
to the President of the Republic the advisory decisions
taken with regard to the formulation, determination,
and implementation of the national security policy of
the State and its views on ensuring the necessary
coordination.
State of emergency administration
ARTICLE 119

 The President of the Republic may declare state of

emergency in one or more regions or throughout the
country for a period not exceeding six months in the
event of war, the emergence of a situation necessitating
war, mobilization, uprising, strong and actual attempt
against homeland and Republic, widespread acts of
violence of internal or external origin threatening the
indivisibility of the country and the nation, emergence
of widespread acts of violence which are aimed at the
destruction of the constitutional order or the
fundamental rights and freedoms, severly destruction of
public order due to acts of violence, and emergence of
natural disaster, dangerous pandemic disease or severe
economic crises.

6. Iranian
Political
System
Past Papers:
• Guardian Council of Iran. (note) 2018
• Rahbar in Iran’s Constitution. (note) 2014
• Basic principles of Iranian foreign policy. (note) 2011
• Iranian Political System after the removal of the Shah of
Iran. (note) 2010
• Explain features of Iranian Political System. 2007
• Islamic Revolution in Iran. (note) 2001
• Do you agree that we can present Iran as an ideal Islamic
state of modern age. 2002
• Examine the role of Islamic Consultative Assembly in
shaping politics in Iran. 2004
• Do you agree that we can present Iran as an ideal Islamic
state of modern age. 2005
Reading Material
Velayat-e Faqih:
Velayat-e faqih—the lynchpin of Iran’s theocratic Constitution
—is best translated as “guardianship of the jurisprudent.”
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini described this while he was in
exile in 1970 in Iraq. Khomeini argued that since God revealed
the laws according to which Muslims should live and organize
their community, Muslims should apply these laws in practice
rather than just debating them theoretically. The most qualified
people to supervise the application of these laws in the state,
he wrote, are those who know them best (that is, the clerics
who specialize in jurisprudence).
• Two types of institutions coexist in the political
system of the Islamic Republic of Iran: appointed
and elected offices. This dualism reflects the
attempted synthesis between divine and popular
sovereignty enshrined in the Constitution. The
institutional structure of Iran is further complicated
by the existence of what is known as multiple
power centers.
• According to the preamble of the Constitution of
1979, the role of the army and the IRGC is not limited to
“securing the borders” of the country but includes
“struggling to spread the rule of divine law in the world.”

Leader (Rehber):
• The highest authority in the Islamic Republic is the
Leader, who combines religious and temporal
authority in accordance with the theocratic
principle of velayat-e faqih.
• The position was tailor-made for Khomeini himself,
who was both a high-level member of the ulema
and a charismatic political leader. For his
succession, the Constitution provided for a
popularly elected Assembly of Leadership Experts,
consisting of ulema who would choose the Leader
from among the most none-learned ulema.
• By 1989, however, of the ulema who had the
requisite learning shared his notions of theocratic
rule. Consequently, in April 1989, Khomeini
appointed an assembly to revise the Constitution
to relax the religious requirements of the office.
Khomeini died on June 3, 1989.
• From the outset, much of the clerical hierarchy
contested Khamenei’s religious authority,
reopening the split between state and “church”
that the Islamic Republic had supposedly closed
with its fusion of worldly and spiritual authorities.
• Unlike his predecessor, who avoided directly
aligning with political factions and maintained a
position of mediator and arbiter, the current
Leader has publicly sided with the hard-line
conservative faction.
• This was most dramatically illustrated after the
2009 election, when Khamenei categorically
supported
Ahmadinejad and labeled the Green Movement as
treasonous.

Powers of the Leader:

• Leader sets the overall policies of the state.
• Appointing Powers: He also appoints some of its
key figures, such as the head of the Judiciary, half
the members of the Council of Guardians, the
members of the Expediency Council, the director
of the state radio and television broadcasting
monopoly, and the commanders of the IRGC.
• Parastatal economic foundations: He oversees the
numerous parastatal economic foundations and
organizations that were formed after the
revolution out of the expropriated companies
belonging to the previous economic elite. These
organizations are supposedly oriented toward
charity and bear such names as the “Foundation of
the Disinherited and War Injured” and the
“Martyr’s Foundation.” In fact, they are major
holding companies that benefit from state
resources and subsidies without being accountable
to or regulated by the elected government.
Khamenei has used these “nonprofit”
organizations as a means to distribute patronage.
• Foreign policy agenda : The Leader, also, plays a
pivotal role in setting Iran’s foreign policy agenda
and approach. These powers are typically exercised
after consultation with other officials and
confidants, but this process is neither transparent
nor necessarily consensual.
Assembly of Leadership Experts and Rehber
In theory, the Assembly of Leadership Experts, which
is elected every eight years by universal suffrage, is
more powerful than the Leader. It elects him and can
dismiss him if he can no longer perform the
responsibilities of his office or proves unworthy.
However, candidacies to this body are subject to the
approval of the Council of Guardians, whose
members are chosen by the Leader, who thus
maintains his supremacy in practice

President:
• The president is elected by universal suffrage every
four years. He must be a Twelver Shiite and male.
A number of women have tried to become
presidential candidates, always unsuccessfully.
• Until 1989, the office was largely ceremonial. A
prime minister chosen by parliament headed the
executive branch of the government. The 1989
constitutional revision abolished the office of
prime minister, and the presidency became the
chief executive.
• The president heads the executive branch except
in matters reserved for the Leader,
• signs bills into law once they have been approved
by the legislature, and
• appoints the members of the cabinet and
provincial governors, subject to parliamentary
approval.
• He can be impeached by parliament, at which
point the Leader can dismiss him.
• The president does not have to be a cleric, but
between 1981 and 2005, three different members
of the ulema held the office for two consecutive
terms each, reflecting the hegemony of that group
in the Islamic Republic. The June 2005 election of
Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, a lay (that is, a nonulema) Islamist
supported by the IRGC and Basij, heralded the partial
replacement of the clergy by the “war generation,” men
who are products of the postrevolutionary polity and
society. However, in 2013, a cleric again became
president.
Parliament
• Iran’s unicameral parliament, the Majles, has 290
members elected by universal suffrage for four-year terms.
• Members have to be Muslims, but the Constitution
provides for five members of parliament (MPs) to represent
Christians (three), Jews (one), and Zoroastrians (one).

Functions of Parliament
• The Majles has lawmaking powers, but its legislative
output must not contravene the Constitution or Islam,
as determined by the Council of Guardians.
• It has the right to investigate affairs of state, to
approve or reject the president’s cabinet appointments,
and to call ministers to account and subject them to
votes of no confidence. (Interestingly, even the Seventh,
Eighth, and Ninth Parliaments (2004 to present) that
have been dominated by conservatives have often used
these powers to challenge Ahmadinejad’s cabinet
choices and ministers. Rouhani has also seen some of his
nominations for minister fail to garner votes, but
significantly some of the critical posts such as minister
of foreign affairs, minister of petroleum, and minister of
culture and Islamic guidance)
• In his treatise on Islamic government, Khomeini
assigned little importance to parliament, arguing that
Islam had already laid down laws for most matters.
• A legislative assembly’s task was to draw up rules and
regulations for minor issues not dealt with in Islamic
jurisprudence. Since 1979, however, the Majles has
shown remarkable initiative. For one, the traditional
corpus of Islamic law proved woefully inadequate for
governing a modern state, requiring parliament to fill
some of the gaps. Furthermore, the legislative deputies
have vigorously debated state business and held
government officials accountable, the office of the
Leader excepted.
Features that limit the Majles’ legislative role: Two
features of the political system seriously limit the Majles’
legislative role. First, many policies, rules, and regulations
are set by unelected specialized bodies. Second, all its bills
are subject to the veto of the Council of Guardians. Under
the Islamic Republic, the Majles is a forum where policies
are discussed and proposals aired, and where some state
officials are taken to account.

Council of Guardians:
• In order to forestall any possibility of compromising
the Islamic character of the state, the 1979 Constitution
created a separate body to ensure the conformity of
legislation with Islam: the Council of Guardians.
• The Council consists of six members of the ulema and
six lay Muslim lawyers.
• The Leader appoints the ulema; the lawyers are
nominated by the head of the Judiciary (who is himself
appointed by the Leader) but approved by parliament.
• The compatibility of laws with Islam is determined by
the six ulema members only; their compatibility with
the Constitution is determined by the entire council.
Through the years, the Council has rejected numerous
bills because it interpreted them as violating the
Constitution and/or Islamic law.
• The Council of Guardians also supervises the elections
to the Assembly of Leadership Experts, the presidency,
and parliament. It has interpreted this provision of the
Constitution to signify that it can vet candidacies. It uses
this self-ascribed power to limit citizens’ choice at
elections by not allowing candidates of whose views it
disapproves. When in 1991 the Majles passed a law
stripping the council of these powers, the latter,
unsurprisingly, declared the law to be contrary to the
Constitution.

Expediency Council:
• Disagreement between the Majles and the Council of
Guardians is endemic in the Islamic Republic, resulting
in legislative gridlock.
• As long as Khomeini was alive, he was the ultimate
arbiter when a protracted stalemate arose, and all
involved deferred to him. In 1988, Khomeini established
a new collective body to arbitrate such cases, and it was
aptly called the “Council for the Determination of What
Is in the Interest of the Regime,” an unwitting admission
that conformity to the teachings of Islam now took a
backseat to political expedience. Indeed, official Iranian
documents render the name of this body in English as
the “Expediency Council.” Its existence was anchored in
the constitutional revision of 1989.
• The Leader directly appoints over thirty members of
this body, who are chosen mainly from among top
government officials, key cabinet members and military
leaders, the ulema members of the Council of
Guardians, and ulema chosen for their personal
prestige.
In addition to arbitrating conflicts between the Majles and
the Council of Guardians, the Expediency Council has the
constitutional mandate of advising the Leader in formulating
overall state policy.
Multiple Power Centers
• When the revolutionaries took over the state in 1979, they
inherited an administrative bureaucracy whose
commitment to the new ideology they did not trust. Not
content with purging state institutions of individuals they
deemed counterrevolutionary, they built new institutions
whose competency overlapped with the old established
ones. The idea was that the old institutions would more or
less carry on with business as usual, while the new
institutions would actively pursue the realization and
defense of the new Islamic order (see again Figure 16.3).
Examples include the Construction Jihad, which sent young
people to rural areas to help develop them in parallel to
the Ministry of Agriculture. The most important example is
the IRGC. Its original function was to safeguard the
revolution, but in time, it developed into a parallel army
and even acquired an air force and a navy.16 As
Khomeini and his followers consolidated their rule in the
mid1980s, they attempted to merge state and revolutionary
organizations. However, these attempts were mostly
unsuccessful, and the revolutionary organizations are still
active. In the late 1990s, as some state institutions came under
the control of the reformists, conservatives created new
parallel institutions under the aegis of the office of the Leader.
Thus, when the Ministry of Information, as the secret police is
called, came to be staffed mainly by reformists, the Judiciary,
whose head is named by the Leader, proceeded to set up a
parallel secret police (which even maintains a prison system for
political prisoners These multiple power centers complicate
policymaking considerably.

An Honestly Undemocratic
Constitution:
• As our discussion shows, the authority of the elective
offices of the Islamic Republic, essentially the presidency
and parliament, is systematically limited by unelected
bodies. To be sure, the Leader is chosen by an elected
body, the Assembly of Leadership Experts, but there is no
limit on his term. This makes him, for all intents and
purposes, an unremovable leader with vast powers. By
appointing the head of the Judiciary and the commanders
of the police, army, and IRGC, he controls the coercive
apparatus of the state.
• The limited authority of the president and parliament
became startlingly blatant when liberalizing reformists
won a string of elections in the late 1990s. They won
control of the presidency in 1997 and 2001 with the
election of Mohammad Khatami, and of parliament in
2000. However, Leader Ali Khamenei openly sided with
anti-reformist conservatives, whom he chose as the head
of the Judiciary and as the members of the Council of
Guardians. When the lawyers proposed by the Judiciary to
fill vacant seats on the Council of Guardians failed to gain
the endorsement of the reformist parliament in 2001, the
Leader simply refused to schedule the swearing-in
ceremony of the reformist Khatami, who had just been
reelected with 77.9 percent of the vote. In the end, the
lawyers took their seats without gaining majority support
in parliament, after which the Leader consented to swear
in the president. (Although the reformists tried to bring
about change by legal means, they were ultimately
stymied by the Leader, the Council of Guardians, and the
Judiciary, using powers granted to them by the
Constitution. This shows that the Constitution is, if not
liberal and democratic, at least honest; its provisions
need not be violated to prevent democratic governance.)
• The same can be said for citizens’ rights. Although freedom of
speech and association, as well as the safety of the person, are
guaranteed, these are usually qualified by the clause “within the
criteria of Islam.” This leaves the authorities considerable leeway
to abridge these rights. The same is true for the equality of
citizens. Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Iranians are accorded
some legal recognition and can practice their religion freely.
However, Iran’s largest nonMuslim minority, the adherents of the
Baha’i Faith, are considered heretics and systematically
discriminated against; to this day, they may not attend university,
for instance. Even Sunni Muslims, representing about 10 percent
of the total population, are systematically discriminated against in
the civil service and are not allowed to maintain a mosque of their
own in Tehran.
• In the words of a prominent exiled Iranian human rights lawyer,
in the Islamic Republic, “the rights of the clerics do not equal
those of nonclerics, the rights of Twelver Shiites do not equal
those of non-Twelver Shiites, the rights of Shiites do not equal
those of Sunnis, the rights of Muslims do not equal those of
nonMuslims, the rights of ‘recognized religious minorities’ do not
equal those of other ‘minorities,’ and the rights of men do not
equal the rights of women.” The explicit denial of legal equality to
citizens found throughout Iran’s constitution and legal system
stands in sharp contrast to the Universalist language of many
other Third World regimes.

7. Indian
Constitution
Past Papers:
• The Senate of the USA is the most powerful Upper House in the world. Can
you justify this statement? Explain your answer with reference to the
Upper Houses of India and Pakistan. 2016/2010
• “India is a Secular State”. Critically examine and comment.
2015/2013/2005/2009
• President of India: A figure head? The role of the President of
India.2010/2002
• Indian federation rightly said to be a quasi-federation having many
elements of unitary state. 2007
• Salient features of political system of India. 2008
• Why Indian democracy is stronger than any other country of the region.
2006
• Factors responsible for the success of Democracy in India.
2003

Reading Material
Flow chart:
Political Institutions and the
Policy Process
• The members of the Constituent Assembly, which met from 1947 to 1950,
gave shape to these aspirations in the institutions they devised. In some
cases, they drew on India’s cultural and political legacies, but in others, they
borrowed widely from the major constitutions of the Western world. The
result was the separation of power among the executive, the legislature,
and the judiciary at the national level. An equally robust division of power

between the federal government and the regions was also established.  This
hope took a concrete shape in 1957 when the Balwantrai Mehta Committee
recommended the creation of a panchayati raj (literally, the rule of the five) to
set up representative bodies at the district, subdistrict, and village levels. They
were endowed with a measure of administrative autonomy, charged with
developmental functions, and given financial means for that purpose. The
implementation of panchayati raj has been far from uniform, but thanks to the
Seventy-third Amendment to the elected village councils in which

representation of women, Scheduled Constitution in 1993, all of India’s half-

million villages are covered by directly

Castes, and Scheduled Tribes is mandatory.

• To cope with extraordinary situations where rapid action was imperative,

the Constitution gave a series of emergency powers to the national
executive to meet the challenge of grave political crises. Although the
executive power and legislative initiative were intended to be in the

hands Constitution formally vested authority in the president, everyday

exercise of of the prime minister.

The President
• The role of the President as the head of state was designed with
the British monarch in mind. In practice, however, the office
combines the ceremonial roles of head of state with some
substantive powers.

• electoral college consisting of members of the legislative

assemblies of the States and of the national Parliament. The total
voting strength of both groups of electors carry equal weight, in
order to induce a balance between the Union and the States.
• The president is expected to exercise these powers on the advice
of the Council of Ministers, with the prime minister at its head. 
The President invites the leader of the majority party or coalition in
the Lok Sabha (the Lower House of the Indian Parliament) to form
the government. The Indian President exercises his authority as
advised by the prime minister.

• That is not the case anymore. The president’s five-year term can
be renewed. The president can be removed through impeachment
by the Parliament.
• Dismissing elected governments at the regional level and applying
direct rule from Delhi became more frequent during the prime
ministership of Indira Gandhi. However, President K. R. Narayanan,
the first dalit (former untouchable) to have achieved this high
office, set an important precedent in 1998 by turning down a
Cabinet recommendation to impose the President’s Rule on the

corrective procedure written into India’s Constitution rather than

State of Bihar. Today, a declaration of emergency is seen a selfas

an authoritarian exercise of power.

Powers on the president:

1) It provides the president with the authority to
suspend fundamental rights and to declare a state of
national emergency under Article 352, with the
authority to impose the “President’s Rule” in a region,
under which the State is ruled directly by the Union
executive (Article 356), and with a provision for
financial emergency under Article 360. But in true
republican fashion, even while leaving the decision to
the president and the prime minister, the Constitution
requires the presidential proclamations to be laid
before Parliament for approval within two months,
failing which, they will lapse.( The continuity of Indian
democracy was briefly breached through the
imposition of a national emergency in 1975.21 The
national emergency, which lasted from 1975 to 1977,
was declared by the president of India under Article
352 of the Constitution, at the advice of Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi. During this period, the fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Constitution were
suspended and the general election to the Lok Sabha
was postponed by one year; 150,000 people, including
several members ofParliament who stood up
against the draconian measures taken by the
government, were incarcerated)
2) Occasionally, an urgent need for legislation
when Parliament is not in session can be met by
an ordinance, issued by the president. Ordinances
carry the force of law but must be passed by the
Parliament once it convenes, during the span of
six weeks, failing which, it lapses. Ordinance
making contributes to the efficiency and flexibility
of the legislative process in the era of
globalization, when rapid action is very important.
The Prime Minister:
• The connecting link between the Cabinet and
the president as well as between executive and
Parliament, the Prime Minister continues to
be, as Nehru used to describe it, “the linchpin
of Government’’.
• Together with the ministers, the prime
minister controls and coordinates the
departments of government and determines
policy through the submission of a program for
parliamentary action. If the prime minister is
defeated on any major issue, or on a
noconfidence motion, by convention, the
government must resign. This has happened
several times
• The steady rise in the stature of Prime Minister
Narasimha Rao in the 1990s was a testimony
to the institutionalization of the office. Starting
as a temporary replacement for Rajiv Gandhi
and then as a compromise leader, Rao, with
the help of his finance minister Manmohan
Singh, initiated the liberalization of India’s
economy, even without a solid legislative
majority. His leadership skills were immensely
valuable in e nsuring a smooth transition after
the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and during
the post-Ayodhya period.
• The dexterity with which Manmohan Singh has
continued the tradition of prime ministerial
leadership despite the multiple pressures of
coalition politics, and in effective coordination
with Sonia Gandhi, the president of the
Congress Party, is further testimony to the
resilience of the practice of consultation and
cohesion at the highest echelon of government
in India.

The Parliament
Parliament of India consists of two houses, the Lok
Sabha (House of Commons), the lower house, and
the Rajya Sabha, (the Council of States) the upper
house.
1. The Lok Sabha (House of the People) consists of
545 members: 543 are directly elected and 2 are
nominated by the president of India as
representatives of the Anglo–Indian community.
Elections of the members of the Lok Sabha are run
on the basis of a simple majority, from
singlemember constituencies. The term of the Lok
Sabha is five years unless it is extended because of
emergency conditions. The Lok Sabha can be
dissolved before the end of its five-year mandate, or
extended beyond five years, by the President on the
advice of the Prime Minister. The Constitution
specifies that the Lok Sabha must meet at least twice
a year, with no more than six months between
sessions. The total strength of membership of the
Lok Sabha being 545, a political party or coalition
needs to have at least 273 members in order to form
government. However, the UPA coalition fell short of
this magic figure in 2004 and 2009. On both
occasions, the UPA secured a working majority

through support by the Left Front.

• The business of Parliament, avidly reported in
the press, is transacted primarily in English or
Hindi, but there are provisions for the use of
other Indian languages.

• Keeping to the British practice, a number of

parliamentary committees impart a sense of
continuity and specialization to the functioning
of the Parliament. Some are primarily concerned
withorganization and parliamentary procedure.
Others, notably the three finance committees,
act as watchdogs over the executive. Specific
committees scrutinize the budget and
governmental economy, appropriations and
expenditures, the exercise of delegated power,
and the implementation of ministerial
assurances and promises.

• The first hour of the parliamentary day (known

as the “zero hour”) is devoted to questions that
bring the ministers to public scrutiny. The
question hour extends the principle of
parliamentary and public accountability. Written
questions are submitted in advance.
Supplementary questions, which test the
minister’s ability to master the technical details
of governance, can be asked during the question
hour.

• The Lok Sabha’s ultimate control over the

executive lies in the motion of no confidence
that can bring down the government.

2. The Rajya Sabha consists of a maximum of 250

members, of whom. 12 are nominated by the
President for their “special knowledge or practical
experience” in literature, science, art, or social
service. Reflecting the federal principle, the
allocation of the remaining seats corresponds with
the size of the respective populations of the regions,
except that small states have a larger share than
their actual population proportion would imply. The
members of the state legislative assembly elect
members of the Rajya Sabha for a term of six years.
The terms are staggered, so that elections are held
for one-third of the seats every two years.
• The Rajya Sabha was seen merely as a “talking shop”
during the earlier periods of Congress Party
hegemony when the party dominated both houses of
Parliament. Because most of the real power of
accountability and finance inhere in the lower house,
the center of political gravity naturally lies beyond
the reach of the smaller, and constitutionally less
powerful, upper house. Still, the increasingly
competitive character of the Indian political process
has increased the importance of the Rajya Sabha,
too.

• The legislators do not have the finances or personnel

that the political system of the United States bestows
on members of Congress.

• Indian committee hearings are not public occasions

and therefore do not have the power of U.S. House
or Senate committee hearings. As such, they provide
only a forum for wide political consultation.

• When the majority of the ruling party or coalition in

the Lok Sabha is narrow and the opposition has a
majority in the Rajya Sabha, the potential peril of
defeat in a joint session encourages the government
to think in terms of cooperation rather than
confrontation. If the parliamentary election produces
a situation where the two houses of Parliament do
not have the same majority, the Rajya Sabha gains in
power and tries to play an independent role in the
matters of scrutiny and accountability. This has
already happened in 1996, 1998, and 2004.

The Legislative Process

• The legislative process generall y follows the
British
practice.

• Laws are initiated in the form of government b

ills or

private members’ bills.

• The initiation of most legislation cl early lies

with the
government.

either house.
• All bills except money bills can be introduced in

• The Ministry of Law and the Attorney General of

India are consulted on legal and constitutional

aspects.

• Ordinary bills go through three readings in each

house. The second reading is the most vital, because
at this stage, the bill receives the most detailed and

Committee or a Joint Committe e of both houses

of minute examination and may be referred to a

Select
Parliament.

• These committees do not have the same standing or

resources as the committees in the U.S. House or
Senate. They are neither called on to investigate the
affairs of the government in public hearings nor asked to
approve executive appointments. Their power derives
from
the tradition of bipartisanship, which, as in the United

Kingdom, gives them a sense of legitimacy and trust.

• Once both houses pass a bill, it requires the president’s

assent to become a law. This assent is not a mere
formality. The president sometimes asks for technical
details and expert advice in order to examine the
constitutional implications of a bill before giving his or her
assent. Potentially, this is a formidable threat in view of
the fragility of coalitional politics where a united stand by
the Cabinet against an adversary is relatively difficult to
sustain. A president determined to delay or obstruct
legislation can do so through the simple expedient of not
returning a bill, with or without assent, before the end of
the current parliamentary session. In effect, this means
that the government will need to repeat the entire
legislative process for the bill in the next session. If the
president withholds his assent and the Parliament passes
the bill again, he would be obliged to give it presidential
assent. But these are exceptional situations. Unlike in the
United States, the president is not expected to take veto
as a source of influence on the policy process or an

legislative initiative, and there is no practice of presidential

has exclusive authority. The Rajya Sabha can only
exercise of checks and balances.
• In matters relating to initiating money bills, the Lok Sabha

recommend changes; it cannot initiate, delay, or reject.

• Government control over legislation was considerably

strengthened by the passage of the antidefection law in
1985. Under this act, voting against the party line is

disapproval of political opportunism have induced some

considered to be a defection, which leads to loss of the

seat by the member. This law and the electorate’s stability
at the level of the central and state governments.
The Judiciary
 The Indian Supreme Court, which is both independent
from external control and free to interpret the law, has
come a long way to fulfill this role. It was originally
intended to be supreme only within the “procedure
established by law, ” because law itself, following
thetradition of parliamentary politics, is in the domain of
the legislature. On numerous occasions, however, the
Court has vehemently defended its exclusive right to
exercise control over legislation. (The Constitution of
India committed itself to individual rights of equality and
liberty. However, it did not incorporate the American
concept of natural justice where the U.S. Supreme Court
is the ultimate defender of the “natural” rights of the
individual.)
1) The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction
in disputes between the Union Government and one or more
States, or disputes between two or more States.
2) It has appellate jurisdiction in any case, civil or criminal,
that is certified as involving a substantial question of law in the
meaning and intent of the Constitution.
3) The Supreme Court is the interpreter and guardian of the
Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
• Unlike the British system, where no national court
exists to hold an act of Parliament invalid, all
legislation passed in India’s national or State
governments must conform to the Constitution. The

Supreme Court determines the cons titutionality

of any enactment.

• A remarkable feature of judicial review is the power

of the Supreme Court to rule a constitutional
amendment invalid if it violates the “basic structure”
of the Constitution, but the scope of judicial review in
India is not as wide as in the United States.

• The Court’s landmark decisions—for example, its

1995 ruling that hindutva, the core of the ideology of
the BJP, was part of Indian culture and not
necessarily of a religion—have deeply influenced the
nature of political discourse in India. Recent survey
findings rate the Indian Supreme Court along with
the Election Commission as the mo st

trustworthy of institutions.
• Since the core judicial doctrine of the Constitution of
India is based on the “procedure established by law,
” the Supreme Court was initially accorded a status
below the Parliament but above the national
executive in terms of authoritative interpretation of
the law. But the Supreme Court has gradually
asserted its supremacy in such matters as well. This
evolution was facilitated by the steady erosion of the
massive legislative majorities of the government
since the early decades after India’s independence,
the rise of media influence, and the mobilization of
interest groups at the national level. The emergency
rule of Indira Gandhi (1975–1977) dented the Court’s
authority and autonomy. Since then, its authority has
bounced back.

• The Court has also appointed itself as the guardian of

vulnerable social groups and neglected areas of
public life, such as the environment. Known as Public
Interest Litigation (PIL), this is one of the most

celebrated and contentious innovations of India’s

Supreme Court.

• Today, the Supreme Court of India is seen as an

important institutional protector of liberty,
secularism, and social justice. Its power and
legitimacy are the consequence of the long evolution
of judicial culture under colonial rule and the

important role played by lawyers in India’s

freedom struggle.
The Party System
• The party system of contemporary India is built on
the foundation of six decades of growth under
British rule prior to India’s independence. It is a
complex system characterized by the continuous
presence of the Congress Party in the national
political arena during the early decades after
Independence, the emergence of a powerful Hindu
nationalist movement, a strong communist
movement that has held power in various regions
of India for a considerable period, and the growth
of strong regional movements that have become
well-entrenched regional political parties.
• picture becomes much clearer if we divide the
postindependence period into the “one-
dominant-party
system” period (1952–1977) and its subsequent
transformation into a multiparty system.
• Universal adult franchise was introduced in 1952.
All political parties present at that time, including
the Communist Party of India and the Jan Sangh, a
Hindu rightwing party, were authorized to
participate in the election. Thanks to the extension
of suffrage, the electorate expanded and brought

into the political arena a large The

Indian National Congress
number of voters with no previous electoral
experience.
• The Congress Party, as an officeseeking and
anticolonial movement, became the instigator and
beneficiary of reform. The Morley–Minto Reforms
of 1909 had conceded limited Indian
representation and provided for separate
electorates to give minorities additional weight.
The reforms of 1919 provided for a relatively large
measure of responsibility at the local and provincial
levels in areas such as education, health, and public
works that were not “reserved” or deemed crucial
for colonial control. The Congress Party took
advantage of these reforms to participate in the
local and municipal elections, which greatly
enhanced the potential for democratic government
after India’s independence.
• Congress Party developed the ability to aggregate
interests, a talent for sustained and coordinated
political action, and skills of administration through
vigorous participation in elections, particularly
those to the provincial legislature under the 1935
Government of India Act.
• Post-independence
The years between 1950 and 1967 were the period
of solid dominance of the Congress Party, which
ruled at the center as well as in the states by
drawing on its legacy as the party of Gandhi,
Nehru, and the Freedom Movement.
Soon after India’s independence, the Congress
Party co-opted landed gentry, businessmen,
peasant proprietors, new industrialists, and the
rural middle peasants into its organization. Building
on the aura of Gandhi’s identification with the
village and Nehru’s penchant for modernity,
socialism, a modern scientific outlook, and
secularism, the Congress developed the profile of a
quintessentially catchall party. In addition, the
Congress Party developed an elaborate network of
patronage, which made it possible to bargain with
a wide spectrum of social groups for political
support in return for economic favours. The
opposition to Congress dominance took the form
of a large anti-Congress coalition, which brought
the competitors of the Congress to coordinate their
electoral strategies. The consequence of this
became clear at the national level in the election to
the Lok Sabha in 1967, where the number of seats
won by the Congress Party fell from 361 in 1962 to
283.
• The party split in 1969, with the party’s
organization and the parliamentary wing going in
different directions. The parliamentary wing, which
constituted itself as the Congress (Requisitionist),
won a landslide victory under the leadership of
Indira Gandhi in 1971 and formed the government
at the center. However, the emergency rule of
1975–1977 led to the victory of the Janata Party—a
coalition of socialists, the Hindu nationalist
Bharatiya Jana Sangh Party, and the Swatantra
Party, based on economic liberalism—in 1977. The
internal contradictions of the coalition soon
surfaced, and the short-lived first non-Congress
government of India fell in 1980, leading to new
elections. The Congress (R), which had split again in
1978, came back triumphant under a new party
label—Congress (Indira), in 1980, exposing in the
process the scope for ‘popular authoritarianism’ in
Indian politics. Following Indira’s assassination by
her Sikh bodyguards in 1984—in revenge for the
military action against Sikh terrorists based in the
Golden Temple of Amritsar, the holiest shrine of
the Sikhs—her son Rajiv Gandhi was inducted as
the national leader of Congress (I). In the election
to the Lok Sabha that followed, buoyed by the
sympathy factor, the party came back with its
bestever electoral performance, with 415 seats and
48 percent of votes in 1984.
• The resurgence of the Congress Party is caused
partly by the disarray within the BJP leadership but
mostly because of its coming to terms with the
logic of coalition politics, which has a very
significant implication for the party. As a national
party, the Congress is always at a disadvantage
against regional parties when it comes to the
championship of local and regional demands as
against the interest of the country as a whole.

The Bharatiya Janata Party:

• The BJP traces its origin to the Hindu right-wing
Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) Party that was formed
shortly after independence. Despite its coherent
ideology and well-knit organization, the Bharatiya
Jana Sangh had not managed to win office during
the first two decades of independence.
• The opportunity came when it joined the other
opposition parties to form the Janata Party, which
defeated the Congress Party in the Lok Sabha
election of 1977 and formed the government.
However, the deep ideological and personal
differences among the constituents of the Janata
Party made its government unfeasible, leading to
its fall. In the Lok Sabha election of 1980, the bulk
of the members of the erstwhile BJS walked out of
the Janata Party and founded the BJP.
• Its first electoral performance was lackluster, but it
gradually worked its way toward a much more
prominent political position, riding on the agenda
of assertive Hindu nationalism.
• In the course of its rapid rise to power, the party
drew on the desire of many Hindus to see a more
prominent role for Hindu culture within the
institutions of the secular state and to deny
special treatment to minorities, such as special
status for the Muslim majority State of Jammu
and Kashmir.
• The BJP came to power riding the crest of Hindu
nationalism and promising to build a temple for
Rama in the city of Ayodhya where the Babri
mosque stood.
• In the 1991 election, the BJP confirmed its position
as the main challenger to the Indian National
Congress by winning 120 seats and over 20 percent
of the popular vote.
• When the mosque was demolished by a mob of
Hindu zealots, the State government of Uttar
Pradesh (where Ayodhya is located), led by the BJP,
accepted responsibility for its failure to uphold law
and order, and resigned.

Communist Party
• Founded in 1927, the Communist Party of
India is one of the oldest in the world. It was
proscribed for most of the time under British
rule, except toward the end.
• The Telengana uprising of 1946 and 1947,
modeled after the Chinese revolution, was
rapidly put down by the Indian army. This
discredited the leftist faction.
• Subsequently, the Communist Party won the
regional election in the southern State of
Kerala in 1957, the first victory for
communism in a
democratic election. Following the resolution of the
Soviet Communist Party to support “peaceful
transition to democracy,” the Communist Party of
India looked poised for a bigger role in Indian politics.
However, that was not to be. The dismissal of the
Communist government of Kerala after two years in
office by the Congress Party in the center under
Article 356 of the Constitution showed the limits of
“bourgeois democracy,” exactly as the left faction
of the party had argued.
• Differences with China on the boundary led to
a border conflict in 1962, which caused
members of the left faction to come out in
favor of China, leading to their incarceration.
The split was formalized in 1964 with the
founding of the Communist Party of
India (Marxist) (CPM), which followed a radical,
proChinese line compared with the Communist Party
of India (CPI), which stuck with a more moderate,
proCongress and pro-Soviet line.
• Two main trends have emerged since these
turbulent times. The CPM, which came to
power in West Bengal in the late 1970s,
became one of the longestserving,
democratically elected communist
governments anywhere in the world.
Nationally, communist parties generally
receive less than 10 percent of the vote in
parliamentary elections (see Figure 17.8).
However, the urge for revolution, powerfully
articulated by the “Naxalites”—this is how the
Indian Maoists named themselves—lives on
under different names in different parts of
India.
Their violent activities The continue to be a source of
anxiety for the Indian government.
Social Bases of the Parties
• The social base of the Congress Party cuts across all
social groups and cleavages of India, making it India’s
quintessential catchall party. Nevertheless, the
Congress Party has relatively greater support in the
lower social order and among religious minorities.
• The social profile of the Hindu nationalist BJP
presents a sharp contrast. It is very much a party of
the “Hindu-Hindi belt,” which normally indicates the
northern Indian Gangetic plains. The BJP continues
to be very much a party of the upper social order
and Hindu upper caste but has nevertheless already
succeeded in extending its reach to the former
untouchables and tribals.
• The left, consisting of both communist parties (CPM
and CPI), attracts proportionally more support from
the lower social classes as well as support from the
more educated voters. The rise of India’s regional
parties is a comparatively recent phenomenon.
• The right to vote by secret ballot—exercised at a
polling booth conveniently located at a public place
where one could vote freely—created an
environment that was helpful for political
participation. The right to vote in secrecy and
without coercion allowed the newly mobilized lower
castes and religious minorities, who felt empowered
thanks to the value of the vote, to directly challenge
social dominance.

Indian federation rightly said

to be a quasi-federation
having many elements of
unitary state
• The successful accommodation of regional identity
within the federal structure has increased the
number of federal States to twenty eight, besides
seven Union Territories.
• Numerous special features of the Indian Constitution
give it its highly centralized form. Of these, the two
most important are 1) the division of powers
between the central government and the States,
with a bias in favor of the center, 2) the financial
provisions affecting the distribution of revenues,
weighted in favor of the central government.
• In India, unlike in the United States, the federal
States do not have their own separate constitutions.
• The Constitution of India, in the tradition of written
agreements between the central government and
the states, defines the division of powers between
both sides in its seventh schedule.
1) The Union List (97) gives the center exclusive
authority to act in matters of national
importance; this list includes ninety-seven
items, such as defense, foreign affairs, currency,
banking, and income tax.
2) The State List, which allocates exclusive rights of
legislation to the States, includes 66 items of
local and regional importance, such as public
order and police, welfare, health, education,
local government, industry, agriculture, and land
revenue.
3) The Concurrent List contains 47 items in which
the center and the States share legislative
authority. In case of a conflict, the central law
prevails. Civil and criminal law and social and
economic planning are the important items in
this list, as these subjects are crucial to issues of
identity and economic development.
A quasi-federation having many elements of unitary
state
1)The residual power lies with the Union. Unlike the
classic model of federalism, in India, the central
government, acting through the Parliament, can
create new States, alter the boundaries of existing
ones, and even abolish a State by ordinary legislative
procedure without recourse to constitutional
amendment.
2)Not only does the central government have a wide
range of powers under the Union List, but these
powers are enhanced because the central
government has a variety of powers that enable it,
under certain circumstances, to extend its authority
to the domain of the states. These special powers
take three forms: (1) the emergency powers under
Articles 352, 356, and 360; (2) the use of Union
executive powers under Articles 256, 257, and 360;
and (3) special legislative powers granted under
Article 249.
3)The emergency powers in the Indian Constitution
can enable the Union executive to transform the
federation temporarily into a unitary state when the
president makes a declaration to that effect. Under
these emergency provisions, the central executive
and legislature can simply substitute the
corresponding organs of the regional governments.
4)Even under nonemergency conditions, the central
government may assume executive powers over
regional governments in the “national” interest.
These powers, used by the president at the advice of
the prime minister, are closely monitored by the
Parliament, the media, and the judiciary. In this
context, the Rajya Sabha acts as the custodian of the
States’ interests.
5)Center’s right to influence the federal division of
powers is reinforced by the Constitution’s financial
provisions: The center’s right to influence the
federal division of powers is reinforced by the
Constitution’s financial provisions. The central
government has vast powers over the collection and
distribution of revenue, which makes the States
depend heavily on the central government for
financial support. Financial assistance flows from the
central government to the states in several ways.
Most of the lucrative taxes, like income tax,
corporate tax, and import and export duties, are
collected by the central government. The center and
the States share these funds under a formula
devised by the Finance Commission, which is
appointed by the president but is guaranteed
independence from interference by the center and
States. The center alone has the power over
currency, banking, and international borrowings.
6)The States also have their own sources of income.
But these taxes, such as land revenue or irrigation
taxes, for example, have not been particularly
lucrative. Agricultural income is notoriously difficult
to ascertain, and taxes on such income are difficult
to collect.
7)As a result of the financial provisions in the
Constitution and their evolution over time, the
States are routinely short of funds. These shortfalls
are met through central assistance in the form of
loans, granting-aid, and overdraft facilities—
provisions that compromise the autonomy of the
states. This situation has been further reinforced by
the centralizing tendencies of the national five-year
plans and the powers exercised by the Congress
Party on state governments, ruling both at the
center and in the States virtually uninterrupted for
two decades following India’s independence.
Despite these centralizing tendencies, however, the
Indian political system has a distinct pattern of
cooperation between the center and the States. This
cooperation was helped by rapid economic growth in
some cases and the assertion of cultural identity and
autonomy in others. Freed from the tutelage of central
dominance because of the decline of the “one-
dominant-party system” and liberalization of the
economy since 1991, Indian federalism has become
more robust in recent years.
8. Chinese
Constitution
Past papers:
• Discuss the powers and functions of China’s National
People’s Congress. 2020
• Discuss the salient features of Chinese Constitution
(1982). 2015/2013
• Impact of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms on China.(note)
2014
• How Political parties are organized in China? Discuss
the organization and functions of Chinese Communist
Party. 2011
• Cadres Scheme in Chinese Political System.(note)
2009
• Deng’s concept of ‘One Country Two Systems’ in
China political system has succeeded in achieving
Chinese National objectives. Substantiate your
answer .
• Discuss the organization and role of Chinese
Communist Party in Chinese political system. 2008/2001
• Explain the commune system in People’s Republic of
China. How it played role in socio-economic
development of the country.2002
• Main characteristics of Chinese political system. 2005

Reading Material
National People’s Congress
• According to the constitution, the highest organization of
state authority is the NPC. The NPC and its permanent
body, the NPC Standing Committee, exercise legislative
functions.
• Election by delegates in provincial-level congresses and
the armed forces.
• Tenure
NPC delegates are elected for five-year terms
• Composition:
NPC delegates assemble once annually for a plenary
session of about two weeks. The number and composition
of delegates are prescribed by law, but the NPC has always
In 1986, the law set a ceiling of
been huge.
3,000 delegates, which is about the
number elected to each congress since
1983. Urban Chinese were overrepresented (by a ratio
of eight to one, later changed to four to one) until a 2010
law gave rural residents equal representation in
congresses at all levels
• Powers and Functions:
1) Formally, the NPC has extensive powers, including
amendment of the constitution, passage and
amendment of legislation, approval of economic plans
and government work reports, and appointment of top
state and government leaders.
2) The main function of the NPC, as with most legislatures,
is to serve as the constitutional source of law and
public policy.
3) Additionally, it has the authority to appoint, recall, or
remove from office top executive and judicial officials.
Upon recommendation of the president of the People’s
Republic, the NPC designates, and may remove, the
premier and other members of the State Council.
4) It also elects the president of the Supreme People’s
Court and the chief procurator (prosecutor) of the
Supreme People’s Procuratorate. It also has the
authority to amend the constitution
5) The NPC has nominal control over the executive branch
in that it chooses both the president and the
vicepresident. The term of office of the president and
vicepresident of the People’s Republic of China is the
same as that of the National People’s Congress. Under
the 1982 constitution, these officials are limited to two
consecutive terms. Since 1993, the president has also
been the general secretary of the CCP. Jiang Zemin’s
successor, Hu Jintao, became general secretary in late
2002 and president of China in March 2003. The “fifth
generation” is scheduled to come into power in 2012–
13, with Xi Jinping, Hu’s vice president and first
secretary of the CCP’s Central Secretariat, widely
expected to come out on top.
• Standing Committee: For most of the year, when the NPC
is not in session, its Standing Committee of about 150
members, who reside in Beijing and meet regularly
throughout the year, serves as the working legislative
assembly. The 1982 constitution considerably
strengthened the role of the NPC Standing Committee. It
now exercises all but the most formal powers of the NPC
and prepares the agenda for the annual NPC plenary
sessions, when the full NPC typically ratifies its interim
legislative actions. In recent decades, however, the NPC
has become more assertive, and its Standing Committee
has assumed a greater role in lawmaking.
• The National People’s Congress has established a number
of committees that focus on different issue areas. The
special committees examine, discuss, and draw up
relevant bills and draft resolutions. They are under the
direction of the Standing Committee of the NPC when the
Congress is not in session.
• Legislature remains institutionally weak for
two main reasons the practice of executive-led
government (which does not distinguish the Chinese
system from parliamentary systems in other countries)
and the practice of Communist Party leadership (which is
more fundamental.
Communist Party Leadership
• The Communist Party exercises direct leadership over
government and legislative functions in a variety of ways.
• Before the NPC assembles, party leaders convene a
meeting of all delegates who are members of the
Communist Party (about 70 percent of NPC delegates). At
these meetings, leaders discuss the NPC agenda and offer
“hopes” of the party leaders for the forthcoming session,
including suggestions about the tone (how open or
restrained NPC debate should be, for example).
Also, NPC powers of appointment are effectively nullified
by party control over candidate nomination and little to
no electoral choice. For example, although the NPC
formally appoints the president, vice president, premier,
and cabinet members, there has never been more than
one nominee for these positions, and candidate
nomination is decided at the party meeting convened
before the NPC assembles.
• As to lawmaking, Communist Party leaders have veto
power over all legislation of consequence. The system of
party review of legislation that emerged in the early 1990s
rejects party micromanagement of the State Council or
NPC Standing Committee work. Nonetheless, all important
laws, constitutional amendments, and political laws
submitted to the NPC or its Standing Committee must have
prior approval by the party center. In short, the Chinese
system is executive-led government, but with an
important difference: leadership by the Communist Party.
The president of the PRC is head of state. This is a purely
ceremonial office, held by Xi Jinping. Xi is also head of the
Communist Party organization and of the Central Military
Commission, in which leadership of military forces is formally
vested. The commission was established as a government
structure only in 1982, but its Communist Party counterpart
functioned long before then and remains in existence, with the
same membership in party and government structure.

The Communist Party of China

• Membership is about 6 percent of the population—not a
mass political party with membership open to all. The
notion of Communist Party leadership is explicitly set forth
in the constitution, as is some version of the notion of
dictatorship.
The constitution describes the political system as a socialist
state under the “people’s democratic dictatorship.” As the
Communist Party is the only organization with the politically
correct knowledge to lead society, it is the authoritative arbiter
of the interests of the people. In effect, dictatorship in the
name of the people is Communist Party dictatorship.
• Party Organization The Communist Party is organized
around a hierarchy of party congresses and committees
extending from the top of the system down to the
grassroots.
• Inner-party rules for decision making are based on the
Leninist principle of democratic centralism. In democratic
centralism, democracy refers mainly to consultation. It
requires that party leaders provide opportunities for
discussion, criticism, and proposals in party organizations
(often including lower party organizations) as part of the
normal process of deciding important issues or making
policy. Centralism requires unified discipline throughout
the party: top-level official party decisions are binding on
party organizations and members.
Impact of Deng Xiaoping’s
reforms on China
 Deng was one of the Long March survivors who, in the
course of the war against Japan and later the civil war,
established sound political skills, if not military genius.
These skills would serve him well as he later assumed
control of China’s destiny. Deng’s policies included
economic development as determined by empirical results
rather than an emphasis on ideology. In the party
conference of December 1978 (Third Plenum, Eleventh
Central Committee), the rise of Deng Xiaoping as the
paramount leader was made evident and his
modernization strategy confirmed.

Opening of China not only to the world

economy but to foreign ideas:
Traditional values and standards of behavior were further
undermined by foreign students and tourists, who poured
into China while Chinese students in large numbers went
abroad to study. This made it increasingly difficult to keep
foreign ideas out. Electronic media, and especially the
Internet, made intellectual isolation impossible. The
“infection” of foreign ideas culminated in the Tiananmen
incident in 1989 when youthful protesters demanded
democratic political reform and an end to corruption.
The Party
• Beginning with Zhou Enlai’s Four Modernizations, China
embarked on a path more in line with conventional
political development, that is, institutions, policies, and
procedures. This process accelerated under the regime of
Deng Xiaoping and has continued ever since. While there
are outward manifestations of a modern, and democratic,
political system, actual power remains in the hands of the
party. In the 1982 constitution of the People’s Republic,
legislative, executive, and judicial organs of government
are laid out as well as the other accoutrements of modern
government such as civil rights.
• The disintegration of the Soviet Union raised questions
regarding the theoretical foundations of the state as
defined by communist doctrine, forcing China to reassess
the situation. The status of communism and the role of the
Chinese Communist Party became increasingly ambiguous.
To shore up its status, the party pursued two courses of
action. Among the basic decisions taken by the party, the
most immediate was a commitment to never voluntarily
abdicate its monopoly of power as the Soviets had done,
and “the media were instructed to play up the specter of
disorder and chaos in the Soviet Union as a warning to the
Chinese people should they think of following the Soviet
course.” The second commitment was to economic
development and improvement in the quality of life.
“Thus, the authorities promised economic prosperity and
political stability as long as they were in control.”11 The
legitimacy of the party’s political dominance thus was
predicated on its ability to maintain political stability and
promote economic prosperity, which, it would seem,
amounts to a return to Confucian basics.
• How Communist Party is Organized?
1) National Party Congress
• The Communist Party constitution
vests supreme authority in the
National Party Congress, but this
structure is too big and meets too
infrequently to play a significant
role in political decision making.
• 2270 .members
• The Central Committee determines the
number of congress delegates and the
procedures for their election.
• Party
normally convened at five-year
constitutions since 1969 have stipulated that
congresses are
intervals. This has been more or less the practice since 1969
and has been strictly observed in the post-Mao years.
• National Party session are short, about a
Congress week or s
two at most.
• Main functions:
1) A main function is to ratify important changes in
broad policy orientation already decided by
more important smaller party structures.
Although party congresses yield no surprises,
these changes receive their highest formal
endorsement at the party congresses.
2) A second function of the National Party Congress
is to elect the Central Committee, which
exercises the powers of the congress between
sessions.
2) Central Committee
 National Party Congress elect the Central
s
Committee, which exercises the powers of
the congress between sessions. Official candidates
for Central Committee membership are
determined by the Politburo before the congress
meets. According to the 1982 party constitution,
elections to the Central Committee are by secret
ballot, and wide deliberation and discussion of
candidates precedes them. Of course, centralism
prevails; elections rarely offer choice (or much
choice) among candidates.
 370 members
Main functions:
1) Central Committee does not initiate policy,
changes in policy or leaders at the political
center must be approved by it. (This is done
fairly routinely at plenary sessions now
convened at least annually)
2) Party leaders at the top rely on the
bureaucratic and regional elites on the Central
Committee to ensure that the “party line” is
realized in practice. Central Committee
membership brings these elites into the
process as participants and, in effect,
guarantors; in endorsing party policy,
members also take on responsibility for its
realization
• It is a collection of the most powerful several
hundred political leaders in the country. All
Central Committee members hold some major
substantive position of leadership, as ministers in
the central state bureaucracy or provincial party
leaders.
• The most recent party congress, which met in
November 2012, elected a new “fifth
generation” of political leaders to the Central
Committee. Sixty-four percent of Central
Committee members are new, highly educated
leaders. Unlike previous cohorts of technocratic
leaders, who mostly studied engineering, new
Central Committee members majored in law,
economics, or politics in college. Many hold
graduate degrees.
3) Politburo
• The Central Committee elects . the
• Politburo
The Politburo Standing
Committee, and
the party general
secretary—all of
whom are also
Central
Committee
members.
25 members
The composition of these structures is determined by party
leaders before the party congress, and elections are
mainly ceremonial, featuring no candidate choice.
The Politburo is the top political elite, usually no more than two
dozen leaders, most of whom
have responsibility for overseeing policymaking in some
issue areas.
Its inner circle is
the Committee, typically no more than 7 leaders
Politburo Standing
,
who meet about once weekly, in meetings convened and
chaired by the party general secretary.
Main functions
1) Responsibility for overseeing policymaking in
some issue area.
2) Members of the Politburo and its Standing
Committee are the core political decision
makers in China, presiding over a process that
concentrates great power at the top.
Party Bureaucracy
• The party has its own set of bureaucratic structures,
managed by the Secretariat. The Secretariat provides staff
support for the Politburo, transforming Politburo decisions
into instructions for subordinate party departments.
Compared with their government counterparts, party
departments are fewer in number and have more broadly
defined areas of competence.
How Communist Party is Dominant in China?
• Party and government structures from top to bottom are
staffed by more than 40 million officials on state salaries.
One important mechanism of party leadership, described
earlier in this chapter, is the structural arrangement: the
duplication of political structures and the dominance of
party structures and leaders over government structures
and leaders. The Chinese Communist Party exercises
leadership in political structures in other ways too. Among
the most important are overlapping directorships, “party
core groups,” party membership penetration, and the
nomenklatura system.
1) Nomenklatura System:
The nomenklatura system is the most important
mechanism by which the Communist Party exerts control
over officials.
It allows party leaders to make major personnel decisions
(such as appointment, promotion, transfer, and removal
from office) for all party and government positions of even
moderate importance. From top to bottom, each party
committee has authority over a list of positions one level
down the hierarchy.
2) Party Membership
Another means by which the Communist Party exercises
leadership over officials is in party membership
penetration in political structures. The vast majority of
officials in political structures (including government
structures and positions filled by elections) are
Communist Party members. At their places of work,
officials are members of party committees, general
branches, or branches located in a hierarchy of
basiclevel party organizations. They meet regularly to
participate in party “organizational life,” which is quite
apart from their professional work.
3) Party Core Groups
Separate from the basic-level party organizations that
bring party members in all workplaces under the
Communist Party hierarchy are party core groups,
formed in government structures only and composed of
a handful of party members who hold the most senior
positions. The head of the party core group is normally
also the head of the structure (for example, government
ministers typically head party core groups of their
respective ministries). Party core groups are appointed
by the party committees one level up, and they answer
to these party committees.
4) Overlapping Directorship
Finally, the structural distinctions mask some overlap of
directorates in party and government structures. Xi
Jinping is concurrently head of state, head of the party,
and chairman of the Central Military Commission of
both government and party. The practice of “wearing
two hats” (party and government) has always been
common.
 Party-government
Another problem with the “party-government
bureaucratic machine” has been the party’s control and
‘intervention’ in matters of government policy,”
complicated by the fact that the party “has become
increasingly more corrupt, and its members too often
subvert Party directives.” In order to address the problem
of the party-government interlocking relationship, a 1987
constitutional change created two types of cadres under
separate management systems: “political civil servants
appointed for a fixed term of service and administrative
civil servants with tenure, but managed through state civil
service laws.”

Political Culture of China

• In 1982, the constitutional right to strike was
rescinded. As for mass protests, the official view was
made clear in 1979 with the introduction of the “four
fundamental principles” that political participation
must uphold: (1) the socialist road, (2) Marxism–
Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought, (3) the people’s
democratic dictatorship, and (4) the leadership of the
Communist Party. Of these principles, only the last is
necessary to restrict political participation effectively.
• Very little political activism at local level:
Most ordinary Chinese follow public affairs at least weekly,
mainly through radio or television programs and
somewhat less through newspapers, but politics is not
something that is a regular topic of discussion in China. A
majority say they never talk about politics with others, a
stark reflection of lack of active interest. Not surprisingly,
Chinese in Beijing are much more interested in politics
than Chinese overall; in fact, they discuss politics very
frequently. Yet even if we consider the situation of Chinese
overall, which includes the relatively less knowledgeable
and less interested rural population.
• Protesters and Reformers are vehemently
discouraged:
All three protests ended in defeat for the participants:
prison for the main protest organizers in 1979, expulsion
from the Communist Party for intellectual leaders in 1987,
and prison or violent death for hundreds in 1989. The
defeats extended beyond the mass protest movement to
encompass setbacks to the official reform movement too
since December 1978 has been that the most important
priority for China is economic growth, with social order
and stability as prerequisites for growth. Mass protests are
distinctly disorderly. Further, as a form of political
participation, mass protests are a symptom of regime
failure in two senses. By turning to the streets to articulate
their demands, protesters demonstrate that official
channels for expressing critical views are not working and
that they do not believe the Communist Party’s claim that
it can correct its own mistakes.

Policymaking
List the three tiers and five stages of policymaking in China:
• Three Tiers in Policymaking:

• At the very top tier are the leaders at the apex of the
party—in the Politburo and its Standing Committee.
The party generalists at this tier are each typically
responsible for at least one broad policy area. As a
group, they make all major policy decisions. Formally,
the Politburo has the ultimate authority to determine
major policies, but it probably meets in plenary
session only about once monthly for a morning to
ratify policies already approved by the Politburo
Standing Committee. It is useful to recall here that the
leaders at the top of the party hierarchy include not
only party leaders but also the prime minister and the
NPC chairman. Overlapping directorships help
coordinate major decision making across the three
sets of institutions.
• The most thorough consideration of policy options
and shaping of policy decisions occur at the second
tier— within leading small groups (LSGs), which are
defined by broad policy areas.38 LSGs are headed by
leaders at the top tier of the party, although deputy
heads are likely to be outside the top tier. LSGs have
sweeping mandates to preside over policy research,
formulation of policy proposals, sponsorship of policy
experiments in the localities, and drafting of policy
documents. LSGs bring together all the senior officials
with responsibility for different aspects of a policy
area.
• Below LSGs, at the third tier, are the relevant party
departments and government ministries. As LSGs
have little staff of their own, the research centers and
staff in departments and ministries at the third tier do
the actual work of gathering information and drafting
policy documents. Increasingly, with a high
proportion of policy related to economic matters,
government ministries play a key role—but at this
tier, it is the specific policy area that determines
which bureaucratic players are most involved.
Impact of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms on China
• Economic Growth
Although the Chinese have moved only slowly on political
reforms, they have been bold in economic reforms. Since
1978, Chinese leaders have staked their political legitimacy
on economic growth, more than anything else. For the
most part, the gamble has succeeded. Chinese economic
growth, illustrated in has averaged just under 10 percent
per year since 1980, including a robust 9 percent in 2009,
notwithstanding the financial crisis. Real GDP per capita
has also grown, to more than $9,000 in PPP. China is still a
developing country, but it is the world’s second-largest
economy in PPP terms. Economic reform has been a
remarkable success story. It has been achieved through
three major strategies: opening up the economy to the
world outside, marketizing the economy, and devolving
authority downward to create incentives for local
governments, enterprises, households, and individuals to
pursue their own economic advancement. Foreigninvested
firms are responsible for much of China’s exports,
reflecting the country’s appeal—through preferential
policies, cheap labor, and a potentially huge market—as a
destination for foreign direct investment (FDI).
• Population Control
intervention involving a new policy priority: population
control. For most of the Maoist years, population planning
was not actively promoted. In 1978, with the population
close to a billion and amid rising concern about meeting
economic goals and ensuring basic livelihood, employment
opportunities, and social security support at the current
rate of population growth, China’s leaders declared
population control a major policy priority. State-sponsored
family planning was added to the constitution, and an
ideal family size of one child was endorsed as national
policy. According to this policy, most couples are required
to stop childbearing after one or two births. Married
couples in urban areas, with few exceptions, are restricted
to one child. In rural areas, married couples are subject to
rules that differ across provinces. In some provinces, two
children are normally permitted; in others, only one child
is permitted; in most provinces, a second child is permitted
only if the first is a girl.
China and Family planning
One approach to the numbers issue employed by China and
other countries, such as India, has been to try and limit growth
through family planning. China’s population policy is the most
draconian example of its type in the world. To slow population
growth, China in the late 1970s adopted a highly controversial
one-child-per-family program (rural families could request
permission to have a second child). The policy reduced the
growth rate but has, among other things, created the “little
emperor syndrome.” Chinese families have always preferred
male children in order to carry on the family line, to care for the
elderly, and in agricultural areas, to work the land. In the
traditional male-dominated society, it is the males who
produce wealth for the family. The preference for boys
exacerbates the problem of female infanticide, a practice that
has existed in China for centuries. With modern technology,
such as ultrasound, parents can determine the gender of a
fetus and if it is not what they want, the mother can undergo
an abortion. Some parents abandon female babies, which
results in a large population of orphans, a substantial
percentage of whom are girls. Many are adopted by Western
families. Families that conform to the one-child policy are
rewarded with better jobs and housing, educational
opportunities, and other economic incentives. Failure to adhere
to the one-child rule can lead to the loss of these rewards. All
manner of contraceptives are available, as is abortion. The
campaign has included a heavy dose of propaganda such as the
ubiquitous billboards extolling the virtues of the happy family
with one child. Three decades on, however, the success of the
one-child campaign, in combination with improved health care
and life expectancy, have resulted in an aging population that
will increasingly require social support. The policy is widely
expected to be modified within the next few years.

Best of Luck by
Mukhmall Hayat Jasra
(PSP)
CSS 2021
CSS 2023
PMS 2023