Fragmented Politics

Divided Opposition and Weak Governments in the Czech Republic
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

This chapter focuses on the interaction between government and opposition in the Czech Parliament. It shows that weak and unstable governing coalitions grapple with the presence of two types of opposition – permanent and mainstream opposition. Drawing on the example of the recent economic crisis, this chapter explains the variation in behavior of both types of parliamentary opposition. The behavior of permanent opposition on austerity and budget is adversarial and along ideological lines, rejecting these measures. The mainstream opposition is exhibiting a more nuanced behavior, shifting between consensual and adversarial behavior. The consequence of weak governing coalitions and the confrontational opposition is the recurrence of non-partisan governments used to bridge the party divides and ensure completion of the legislative term. This chapter provides insights into the functioning of fragmented politics – divided opposition and weak government.

Schlagworte

Parliament opposition political system of the Czech Republic voting behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2012. Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2012 – Czech Republic Country Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  2. Carammia, Marcello, und Elisabetta De Giorgi. 2011. Just empty words? Issue competition in Italy between rhetoric and legislative behavior. Paper presented at the Italian Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Palermo, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Cotta, Maurizio. 1994. The rise and fall of the “centrality” of the Italian Parliament: transformations of the executive-legislative subsystem after the Second World War. In Parliaments in the Modern World: Changing Institutions, eds. Gary W. Copeland und Samuel C. Patterson, 59-84. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cupalová, Marcela. 2009. Dopady světové ekonomické krize na veřejné rozpočty v zemích EU a vývoj českých veřejných financí. Praha: Parlament České republiky, Parlamentní institut.Google Scholar
  5. Dahl, Robert A. 1966. Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. De Giorgi, Elisabetta. 2011. L’opposition parlementaire en Italie et au Royaume Uni: une opposition systémique ou axe’e sur les enjeux? Revue Internationale de Politique Compare’e 18 (2): 93-113.Google Scholar
  7. De Giorgi, Elisabetta, Catherine Moury, and João Pedro Ruivo. 2015. Incumbents, Opposition, and International lenders: Governing Portugal in Times of Crisis. The Journal of Legislative Studies 21 (1): 54-74.Google Scholar
  8. De Giorgi, Elisabetta, and Catherine Moury. 2015. Conclusion: Great Recession, Great Cooperation? The Journal of Legislative Studies 21 (1): 115-120.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, Geoffrey, and Stephen Whitefield. 1993. Identifying the bases of party competition in Eastern Europe. British Journal of Political Science 23 (4): 521-548.Google Scholar
  10. Jarass, Hans. D., and Bodo Pieroth. 2012. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: GG. Munich: CH Beck.Google Scholar
  11. Guasti, Petra. 2017. Left and Right and Beyond: Analyzing Representative Claims in the Czech Republic. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, September 6-9, 2017, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  12. Guasti, Petra, Zdenka Mansfeldová, Martin Myant, and Frank Bönker. 2015. Sustainable Governance Indicators 2015. Czech Republic Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung Publishing House.Google Scholar
  13. Guasti, Petra, Zdenka Mansfeldová, Martin Myant, and Frank Bönker. 2016. Sustainable Governance Indicators 2016. Czech Republic Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung Publishing House.Google Scholar
  14. Helms, Ludger. 2008. Studying parliamentary Opposition in Old and New democracies: Issues and Perspectives. The Journal of Legislative Studies 141 (1-2): 6-19.Google Scholar
  15. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1992. The Formation of Party Systems in East Central Europe. Politics & Society 20 (1): 7-50.Google Scholar
  16. Kitschelt, Herbert, Zdenka Mansfeldová, Radoslaw Markowski, and Gábor Tóka. 1999. Postcommunist Party Systems. Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Klíma, Michal. 2001. Kvalita demokracie v České republice a volební inženýrství. Praha: Radix.Google Scholar
  18. Kopecký, Petr, and Maria Spirova. 2008. Parliamentary opposition in post-communist democracies: Power of the powerless. The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (1-2): 133-159.Google Scholar
  19. Kostelecký, Tómaš. 2002. Political Parties after Communism: Developments in East-Central Europe. Washington, Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Centre/John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  20. Kubát, Michal. 2010. The Party System in Central Europe after 20 Years (Standard or Exceptional?). Politics in Central Europe 6 (1): 124-132.Google Scholar
  21. Laver, Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1999. Government Accountability in Parliamentary Democracy. In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, eds. Adam Przeworksi, Susan C. Stokes and Bernard Manin, 279-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, Paul, ed. 2001. Party Development and Democratic Change in Postcommunist Europe (Democratization Studies). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Linek, Lukáš, and Tómaš Lacina. 2010. Czech Republik. European Journal of Political Research 49: 939-946.Google Scholar
  24. Linek, Lukáš. 2014. Čistá a celková volební volatilita v Česku v letech 1990–2013: stejný koncept, odlišná měření a podobné závěry? Acta Politologica 6 (1): 24-38.Google Scholar
  25. Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mansfeldová, Zdenka. 2005. Executive-legislative relations in the Budgeting process in the Czech Republic. Czech Sociological Review 41 (3): 443-459.Google Scholar
  27. Mansfeldová, Zdenka. 2012. Central European Parliaments over Two Decades – Diminishing Stability? Parliament in Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia. In Post-Communists Parliaments. The Second Decade, eds. David M. Olson and Gabriella Ilonszki, 13-31. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Markowski, Radoslaw, and Mikołaj Cześnik. 2011. Wybory parlamentarne w 2007 roku–ciągły zamęt czy utrwalenie nowego rozłamu? Studia Polityczne 27: 109-127.Google Scholar
  29. Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand, and Zdenka Mansfeldová. 2001. The Czech Republic. In Cabinets in Eastern Europe, eds. Jean Blondel and Ferdinand Müller-Rommel, 62-72. Houndmills, New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  30. Norton, Philip. 2008. Making Sense of Opposition. The Journal of Legislative Studies 141 (1-2): 236-250.Google Scholar
  31. Sartori, Giovanni. 1966. Opposition and control problems and prospects. Government and Opposition 1 (2): 149-154.Google Scholar
  32. Verick, Sher, and Iyanatul Islam. 2010. The Great Recession of 2008–2009: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4934.Google Scholar
  33. Wiberg, Matti. 1995. Parliamentary Questioning: Control by Communication? In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. Herbert Döring, 179-222. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Zákon o Jednacím řádu Poslanecké sněmovny Parlamentu České republiky v posledním znění, 265/2014 Sb. (Act on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as amended, 265/2014 Col.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MainzDeutschland
  2. 2.Institute of Sociology, Department Political SociologyCzech Academy of SciencesPraha 1Tschechien

Personalised recommendations