Başbakancı-başkanlık ve Başkancı-parlamenter Sistemlerin Başkanlık Seçimleri Üzerinden Karşılaştırılması

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 26, 80 - 92, 28.02.2025

Abdullah Metin , Ömer Faruk Uğurlu

https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1567336

Abstract

Hükûmet sistemleri genel olarak dört ana kategoride ele alınmakla birlikte, Shugart ve Carey yarı-başkanlık sisteminin başbakancı-başkanlık ve başkancı-parlamenter olarak ikiye bölünmesini önerirler. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bahsedilen iki sistemi başkanlık seçimleri üzerinden karşılaştırarak bu önerinin geçerliliğini sorgulamaktır. Hipotezimiz şudur: Başkancı-parlamenter ve başbakancı-başkanlık sistemler etkin parti sayısı, birinci partinin oyunun ikinci partinin oyuna oranı ve başkanlık seçimlerinin kaçıncı turda bittiği açısından birbirinden anlamlı ölçüde farklılaşır. Amaca ulaşmak için bu iki sistemden birini uygulayan 58 ülkenin son beş başkanlık seçimi sonuçları üzerinden etkin parti sayısı ve oy oranları (birinci partinin ikinci partiye) hesaplanarak veri seti oluşturuldu. Etkin parti sayısı hesaplamalarında Laakso-Taagepera İndeksi kullanıldı. Veri seti SPSS ile analiz edildi. Bulgular hipotezi onaylamaktadır. Öyle ki, etkin parti sayısı başkancı-parlamenter sistemde düşük (2,28) ve başbakancı-başkanlık sisteminde yüksektir (3,22). Birinci partinin oyunun ikinci partinin oyuna oranı başkancı-parlamenter sistemde yüksek (7,02), başbakancı-parlamenter sistemde düşüktür (3,23). Bu nicel kanıtların yanı sıra başkancı-parlamenter ve başbakancı-başkanlık sistemlerinin demokratik işleyiş olarak da farklılaştığı göz önünde bulundurulduğunda bu iki sistemin yarı-başkanlık sisteminin alt tipleri değil, ana hükûmet sistemi kategorileri oldukları görülür.

Keywords

Siyasi sistem, Yarı-başkanlık, Başbakancı-başkanlık, Başkancı-parlamenter, Etkin Parti Sayısı, Laakso-Taagepera İndeksi

A Comparison of Premier-presidential and President-parliamentary Systems Based on Presidential Elections

Abstract

While forms of government are generally divided into four main categories, Shugart and Carey suggested that the semi-presidential system should be divided into two categories: president-parliamentary and premier-presidential. This study aims to assess the validity of their suggestion by comparing these two systems based on presidential elections. We hypothesize that president-parliamentary and premier-presidential systems significantly differ from each other in terms of the effective number of parties (ENP), the vote ratio of the first party to the second party (VR1:2), and the round in which the presidential elections conclude. To test this hypothesis, we created a dataset by calculating ENP and VR1:2 for the last five presidential elections in 58 countries that adopted either a premier-presidential or president-parliamentary system. The Laakso-Taagepera Index (L-T Index) was used for ENP calculations. The dataset was analyzed using SPSS. The results confirm the hypothesis: ENP is lower in president-parliamentary systems (2.28) and higher in premier-presidential systems (3.22). VR1:2 is higher in president-parliamentary systems (7.02) and lower in premier-presidential systems (3.23). Along with this quantitative evidence and considering the differences in democratic functioning between the two systems, it becomes evident that these two systems are not subtypes of the semi-presidential system, but distinct systems in their own right.

Keywords

Political system, semi-presidentialism, president-parliamentary, premier-presidential, effective number of parties (ENP), Laakso-Taagepera Index (L-T Index)

References

• Bahro, H., Bayerlein, B. H., and Veser, E. (1998). Duverger’s concept: Semi-presidential government revisited. European Journal of Political Research, 34(2), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00405
• Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., and Golder, M. (2007). Are African party systems different?. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.06.011
• Brudny, Y. M. (1995). Ruslan Khasbulatov, Aleksandr Rutskoi and intra-elite conflict in Post-Communist Russia, 1991-1994. T. Colton and R. C. Tucker (Eds.), Patterns in Post Soviet leadership (pp. 75-101). Westview Press.
• Cheibub, J. A. (2007). Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
• Cheibub, J. A., and Chernykh, S. (2008). Constitutions and democratic performance in semi presidential democracies. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 9(3), 269¬-303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109908003149
• Chhibber, P., and Nooruddin, I. (2004). Do party systems count? The number of parties and government performance in the Indian states’. Comparative Political Studies, 37(2), 152-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414003260981
• Clark, W. A. (2010). Boxing Russia: Executive–legislative powers and the categorization of Russia’s regime types. Demokratizatsiya, 19(1), 5-22.
• Cronk, C. B. (2024). How to use SPSS: A step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation (12th ed.). Routledge
• Duverger, M. (1980). A new political system: Semi-presidential government. European Journal of Political Research, 8(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1980.tb00569.x
• Elgie, R. (1998). The classification of democratic regime types: Conceptual ambiguity and contestable assumptions. European Journal of Political Research, 33(2), 219-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00381
• Elgie, R. (1999). The politics of semi-presidentialism. R. Elgie (Ed.), Semi-presidentialism in Europe (pp. 1-21). Oxford University Press.
• Elgie, R. (2007). Varieties of semi-presidentialism and their impact on nascent democracies. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(2), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.29654/TJD.200801.0004
• Elgie, R. (2008). The perils of semi-presidentialism. Are they exaggerated?. Democratisation, 15(1), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340701768125
• Elgie, R. (2011). Semi-presidentialism: Sub-types and democratic performance. Oxford University Press.
• Elgie, R. and Moestrup, S. (2016). Semi-presidentialism in democracies, quasi-democracies, and autocracies. R. Elgie and S. Moestrup (Eds.), Semi-presidentialism in Caucasus and Central Asia (pp. 1-28). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). Sage Publication
• Fortin, J. (2012). Measuring presidential powers: Some pitfalls of aggregate measurement. International Political Science Review, 34(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512111421357
• Frye, T. (1997). A politics of institutional choice: post-communist presidencies. Comparative Political Studies, 30(5), 523-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414097030005001
• Hellman, J. S. (1997). Constitutions and economic reform in the post-communist transitions. J. D. Sachs and K. Pistor (Eds.), The rule of law and economic reform in Russia (pp. 55-78). Westview Press
• Kuenzi, M., and Lambright, G. (2005). Party systems and democratic consolidation in Africa’s electoral regimes. Party Politics, 11(4), 423-446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805053211
• Laakso, M., and Taagepera, R. (1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12(1), 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407901200101
• Lijphart, A. (1992). Parliamentary government and presidential government. A. Lijphart (Ed.), Parliamentary versus presidential government (pp. 31–47). Oxford University Press.
• Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford University Press.
• Lijphart, A., Bowman P. J. and Hazan R. Y. (1999). Party systems and issue dimensions: Israel and thirty‐five other old and new democracies compared. Israel Affairs, 6(2), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537129908719558
• Linz, J. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? Juan Linz and Arturu Valenzuela (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy (pp. 3–87). Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Magni-Berton, R. (2013). Reassessing Duvergerian semi-presidentialism: An electoral perspective, Comparative European Politics, 11(2), 222–248. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2012.19
• Metcalf, L. K. (2000). Measuring presidential power. Comparative Political Studies, 33(5), 660-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414000033005004
• Metin, A., and Ünal, S. (2023). Classifying forms of government on a global scale. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 8(2), 487-515. https://doi.org/10.1177/20578911221127176
• Moestrup, S. (2011). Semi-presidentialism in Africa: Patterns and trends. R. Elgie, Sophia Moestrup and Yu-Shan Wu (Eds.), Semi-presidentialism and democracy (pp. 134-155). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mozaffar, S., and Scarritt J. R. (2005). The puzzle of African party systems. Party Politics, 11(4), 399-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805053210
• Munkh-Erdene, L. (2010). The transformation of Mongolia's political system: From semi-parliamentary to parliamentary? Asian Survey, 50(2), 311-334. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2010.50.2.311
• Neto, O. A., and Cox, G. W. (1997). Electoral institutions, cleavage structures and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111712
• O’Neil, P. (1993). Presidential power in post‐communist Europe: The Hungarian case in comparative perspective, Journal of Communist Studies, 9(3), 177-201. http://doi.org/10.1080/13523279308415218
• Paskhina, I. S., and Telin, K. O. (2017). "Party Zero": Russian elections through the prism of the effective number of parties. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 43-53. http://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.05.04
• Protsyk, O. (2003). Troubled semi-presidentialism: Stability of the constitutional system and cabinet in Ukraine. Europe-Asia Studies, 55(7), 1077-1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966813032000130693
• Reiter, D., and Tillman, E. R. (2002). Public, legislative, and executive constraints on the democratic initiation of conflict. The Journal of Politics, 64(3), 810-826. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00147
• Roper, S. D. (2002). Are all semipresidential regimes the same? A comparison of premier-presidential regimes. Comparative Politics, 34(3), 253-272. https://doi.org/10.2307/4146953
• Samuels, D. J., and Shugart, M. S. (2010). Presidents, parties, and prime ministers: How the separation of powers affects party organization and behavior. Cambridge University Press.
• Sartori, G. (1994). Comparative constitutional engineering. Macmillan Press.
• Schleiter, P., and Morgan-Jones, E. (2009). Citizens, presidents and assemblies: The study of semi-presidentialism beyond Duverger and Linz. British Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 871-892. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123409990159
• Schleiter, P., and Voznaya, A. M. (2014). Party system competitiveness and corruption. Party Politics, 20(5), 675-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068812448690
• Schmotz, A. (2019). Hybrid regimes. Wolfgang Merkel, Raj Kollmorgen, and Hans-Jürgen Wagener (eds), The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. Oxford University Press.
• Shugart, M. S., and Carey, J. M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies. Constitutional design and electoral Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.
• Siaroff, A. (2003). Comparative presidencies: The inadequacy of the presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary distinction. European Journal of Political Research, 42(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00084
• Skach, C. (2005). Borrowing constitutional designs: Constitutional law in Weimar Germany and the French fifth republic. Princeton University Press.
• Taagepera, R. (1997). Effective number of parties for incomplete data. Electoral Studies, 16(2), 145-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(97)00003-6
• Taagepera, R., and Shugart, M. S. (1989). Seats and Votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. Yale University Press.
• Tsai, J. H. (2008). Sub-types of presidentialism and political deadlock. French Politics, 6, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fp.8200140
• Wigell, M. (2008). Mapping ‘hybrid regimes’: Regime types and concepts in comparative politics. Democratization, 15(2), 230-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340701846319