What are the conditions that generate minority presidents, minority governments, and deadlock in presidential regimes? What is the impact of minority presidents, minority governments, and deadlock on the survival of these regimes? Based on data for all presidential democracies that existed between 1946 and 1996, the author shows (a) that characteristics of the electoral and party systems do affect the level of support for the president in congress and hence the probability of minority presidents and minority governments; (b) that these characteristics, and the minority governments they generate, do not make deadlock more likely; and (c) that minority presidents, minority governments, and deadlock do not affect the survival of presidential democracies. Together, these findings suggest that the view that explains the instability of presidential democracies in terms of the type of executive-legislative relations these regimes are likely to induce must be abandoned. The author offers two reasons, institutional in nature, that may account for the instability of presidential regimes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, Bruce . (2000). The new separation of powers. Harvard Law Review, 113, 642-727.
2.
Altman-Olin, David. (1999). The politics of coalition formation and survival in multiparty presidential democracies: The case of Uruguay (1989-1999). Unpublished manuscript, Department of Government, University of Notre Dame, IN.
3.
Alvarez, Michael. (1997). Presidentialism and Parliamentarism: Which Works? Which Lasts? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago.
4.
Amorin Neto, Octavio. (1998). Of presidents, parties and ministers: Cabinet formation and legislative decision-making under separation of powers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego.
5.
Banks, Arthur S. (1993). Cross-national time-series data archive [Magnetic tape]. Binghamton: State University of New York at Binghamtom, Center for Social Analysis.
6.
Banks, Arthur S. , Day, Alan J., & Muller, Thomas C. (Eds.). (1997). Political handbook of the world, 1997. Binghamton, NY: CSA.
7.
Banlaoi, Rommel C. , & Carlos, Clarita R. (1996). Political parties in the Philippines: From 1900 to the present. Makati City, Philippines: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
8.
Binder, Sarah A. (1999). The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947-96. American Political Science Review, 93, 519-534.
9.
Blaustein, Albert P. , & Flanz, Gisbert H. (Eds.). (various years). Constitutions of the countries of the World. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.
10.
Brady, David W. (1993). The causes and consequences of divided government: Toward a new theory of American politics?American Political Science Review, 87, 189-194.
11.
Bratton, Michael , and Van de Walle, Nicolas. (1996). Political regimes and regime transitions in Africa: A comparative handbook. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Political Science.
12.
Carey, John M. , Amorin Neto, Octávio, & Shugart, Matthew Soberg. (1997). Appendix: Outlines of constitutional powers in Latin America. In Scott Mainwaring & Matthew Soberg Shugart (Eds.), Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (pp. 440-460). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Carey, John M. , & Shugart, Matthew Soberg. (1994). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14, 417-439.
14.
Carlos, Clarita R. , & Banlaoi, Rommel C. (1996). Elections in the Philippines: From pre-colonial period to the present. Makati City, Philippines: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
15.
Cheibub, José Antonio . (1998, September). Elections and alternation in power in democratic regimes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
16.
Cheibub, José Antonio . (in press). Presidentialism and democratic performance. In Andrew Reynolds (Ed.), Constitutional design: Institutional design, conflict management, and democracy in the late twentieth century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
Cheibub, José Antonio , & Limongi, Fernando. (2000, August). Where is the difference? Parliamentary and presidential democracies reconsidered. Paper presented at the XVIIIth World Congress of Political Science, International Political Science Association, Québec City, Canada.
18.
Cheibub, José Antonio , & Przeworski, Adam. (1999). Democracy, elections, and accountability for economic outcomes. In Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes, & Bernard Manin (Eds.), Democracy and accountability (pp. 222-250). New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Choe, Yonhyok . (1997). How to manage free and fair elections: A comparison of Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Göteburg, Sweden: Göteburg University.
20.
Coleman, John J. (1999). Unified government, divided government, and party responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 93, 821-836.
21.
Cox, Gary W. , & Kernell, Samuel. (Eds.). (1991). The politics of divided government. Boulder, CO: Westview.
22.
Dehesa, Grace Ivana. (1997). Goviernos de coalición en el sistema presidencial: América del Sur [Coalition governments in presidential systems: South America]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.
23.
Figueiredo, Argelina , and Limongi, Fernando. (1999). Executive e legislativo na nova ordem constitucional [Executive and legislative in the new constitutional order]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Fundação Getúlio Vargas/Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.
24.
Figueiredo, Argelina , & Limongi, Fernando. (2000). Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in the legislature. Comparative Politics, 32, 151-170.
González, Luis Eduardo , & Gillespie, Charles Guy. (1994). Presidentialism and democratic stability in Uruguay. In Juan J. Linz & Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy: The case of Latin America (Vol. 2, pp. 151-178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
Hartlyn, Jonathan . (1994). Presidentialism and Colombian politics. In Juan J. Linz & Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy: The case of Latin America (Vol. 2, pp. 220-253). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
Huang, The-fu . (1997). Party systems in Taiwan and South Korea. In Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-han Chu, & Hung-mao Tien (Eds.), Consolidating the third wave democracies: Themes and perspectives (pp. 135-159). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
Jones, Mark P. (1995a). Electoral laws and the survival of presidential democracies. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
30.
Jones, Mark P. (1995b). A guide to the electoral systems of the Americas. Electoral Studies, 14, 5-21.
31.
Jones, Mark P. (1997). A guide to the electoral systems of the Americas: An update. Electoral Studies, 16, 13-15.
Kurian, George Thomas . (Ed.). (1998). World encyclopedia of parliaments and legislatures (2 vols.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
34.
Lamounier, Bolivar . (1994). Brazil: Toward parliamentarism? In Juan J. Linz & Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy: The case of Latin America (Vol. 2, pp. 179-219). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
Linz, Juan J. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Crisis, breakdown, and reequilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
Linz, Juan J. (1990a). The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1, 51-69.
37.
Linz, Juan J. (1990b). The virtues of parliamentarism. Journal of Democracy, 1, 84-91.
38.
Linz, Juan J. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? In Juan J. Linz & Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy: The case of Latin America (Vol. 2, pp. 3-87). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Linz, Juan J. , & Stepan, Alfred. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
40.
Mainwaring, Scott . (1993). Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies, 26, 198-228.
41.
Mainwaring, Scott , & Scully, Timothy R. (1995). Introduction: Party systems in Latin America. In Scott Mainwaring & Timothy R. Scully (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America (pp. 1-34). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42.
Mainwaring, Scott , & Shugart, Matthew Soberg. (1997). Conclusion: Presidentialism and the party system. In Scott Mainwaring & Matthew Soberg Shugart (Eds.), Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (pp. 394-439). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Mayhew, David R. (1991). Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking, and investigations, 1946-1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
McGuire, James W. (1995). Political parties and democracy in Argentina. In Scott Mainwaring & Timothy R. Scully (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America (pp. 200-248). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45.
McKay, David . (1994). Review article: Divided government and governed? Recent research on divided government in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 517-534.
46.
Morrison, Donald George , Robert Cameron Mitchell, & John Naber Paden. (1989). Black Africa: A comparative handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Paragon House.
47.
Nino, Carlos Santiago . (1996). Hyperpresidentialism and constitutional reform in Argentina. In Arend Lijphart & Carlos H. Waisman (Eds.), Institutional design in new democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America (pp. 161-174). Boulder, CO: Westview.
48.
Nohlen, Dieter . (Ed.). (1993). Enciclopedia electoral Latinoamericana y del Caribe [Electoral encyclopedia of Latin America and the Caribbean]. San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
49.
Peaslee, Amos J. (1970). Constitutions of nations. The Hague, the Netherlands: M. Nijhoff.
50.
Przeworski, Adam , Alvarez, Michael, Cheibub, José Antonio, & Limongi, Fernando. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and economic performance, 1950-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Sartori, Giovanni . (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Shugart, Mathew Soberg . (1995). The electoral cycle and institutional sources of divided presidential government. American Political Science Review, 89, 327-343.
53.
Shugart, Mathew Sobert , & Carey, John M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
Stepan, Alfred , & Skach, Cindy. (1993). Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: Parliamentarism versus presidentialism. World Politics, 46, 1-22.
55.
Strom, Kaare . (1990). Minority government and majority rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Sundquist, James L. (1988). Needed: A political theory for the new era of coalition government in the United States. Political Science Quarterly, 103, 613-635.
57.
Valenzuela, Arturo . 1994. Party politics and the crisis of presidentialism in Chile: A proposal for a parliamentary form of government. In Juan J. Linz & Arturo Valenzuela (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy: The case of Latin America (Vol. 2, pp. 91-150). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
