Lesson Report:
Title
From Regime Types to Institutions: Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems, Gridlock, and Accountability
This session bridged students’ regime-classification work to concrete political institutions. After reviewing group verdicts on selected countries, the class contrasted how executive and legislative branches are structured and selected in presidential and parliamentary systems, why gridlock emerges, and how different systems maintain accountability. The lesson closed with key mechanisms (impeachment, votes of no confidence, question time) and a preview of a hands-on institutional simulation for next class.
Attendance
– Number mentioned absent: 6
– Names: Arsthan, Dastan, Husni Dean, Aijamal, Aziret, Begayim
– Notes: Multiple late arrivals; instructor asked late students to see him after class. “Ali Juhiaâ€� reported late but expected.
Topics Covered
1) Opening: Week 8 focus and objectives
– Instructor framed the week’s theme: political institutions and their systems (executive/presidential vs. prime ministerial/parliamentary; legislative organization).
– Goal: move from abstract regime labels (democracy/authoritarian/totalitarian) to concrete institutional designs and their real-world consequences.
2) Warm-up and setup for review
– Students asked to reopen Thursday’s group activity: each group selected a country, labeled its regime type, and prepared at least one key piece of evidence.
– Directions: take 2–3 minutes to revisit notes (Telegram or written), restate the verdict, and identify the strongest evidence.
3) Roll call
– Conducted while students prepared; several absences noted; a few students arrived after their names were called.
4) Country-by-country regime classifications (review and evidence critique)
– United States
– Range of verdicts: democratic, limited democracy, authoritarian, and totalitarian.
– Evidence raised:
– Electoral College as an intermediary between popular vote and presidential selection (limits direct translation of votes).
– Claims of increasing authoritarian tendencies, including government reactions to dissenting speech in sensitive contexts (student cited a recent article).
– Instructor feedback:
– Regime types can shift over time; analyses should consider trends.
– Electoral College noted as significant but not fully unpacked today.
– Pakistan
– Tally (by raised hands method): majority authoritarian; several totalitarian; no democracy.
– Evidence:
– Military dominance over civilian government and political processes (weak civil-military divide).
– Ideology and constitution: state identity grounded in Islam; constraints on minority sects (e.g., Ahmadis) and limitations justified as security measures; constitutional provisions enable curbs on political freedoms.
– Instructor feedback:
– Nuance the “ideology = Islamâ€� claim: distinguish religious influence from specific political ideologies (contrast with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Syria).
– Acknowledge constitutional rights alongside how their framing and application may limit protections.
– Germany
– Tally: overwhelmingly democratic; one authoritarian vote.
– Evidence for democracy:
– Federal parliamentary democracy with a chancellor-led executive; bicameral legislature (Bundestag, Bundesrat).
– Basic Law (Grundgesetz) Article 1 prioritizes inviolable human dignity and limits state overpowering.
– Additional arguments referenced refugee numbers and favorable public-opinion polling.
– Instructor feedback:
– Strengthen causal links: federalism can support representation but does not equal democracy; polls reflect sentiment, not regime type; explain how refugee policy would connect to democratic quality.
– Evidence for authoritarian tilt (minority position):
– Restrictions on certain forms of speech (e.g., bans on Nazi propaganda) and media bans (e.g., a far-right magazine), limiting “true freedom of expression/press.â€�
– Bans on anti-democratic parties raise questions about the breadth of political choice.
– Class discussion:
– Whether banning parties that oppose democracy protects democracy or undermines it (liberal vs. illiberal democracy).
– Core question: can a people democratically choose to end democracy?
– Hungary
– Verdict: authoritarian (group averaged a score of 7/12 on their rubric).
– Evidence:
– 2025 constitutional amendment (reported by Euronews) banning public events deemed harmful to children’s morals, applied to LGBTQ+ events—interpreted as curbing assembly/speech rights.
– 2020 law limiting opposition leaders’ capacity; media control by ruling party; concentration of power with PM Viktor Orbán; weakened checks and balances.
– Instructor feedback:
– Strong examples of how constitutional/legal changes reshape civil liberties and institutional checks.
5) Why regimes can look similar but work differently: institutional structures
– Framing question: How can two democracies (e.g., USA and Germany) share regime type yet operate so differently?
– U.S. institutional overview
– Three branches:
– Executive: President, Vice President, cabinet/ministries.
– Legislative: Congress (bicameral—Senate and House of Representatives).
– Senate: 2 senators per state; House: seats apportioned by population.
– Congress makes laws (legislates).
– Judicial: interprets laws and reviews constitutionality (can strike down unconstitutional laws/executive actions).
– Rationale:
– Separation of powers and checks and balances: distribute power to prevent concentration; branches compete, limiting overreach.
6) German (parliamentary) structure at a glance
– Executive split:
– Chancellor (head of government) and a largely ceremonial President (head of state).
– Legislature: Bundestag (with Bundesrat as federal chamber); judiciary exists independently.
– Emphasis: focus on differences in how executives are selected and how that shapes inter-branch relations.
7) Executive selection models: presidential vs. parliamentary
– Presidential system (e.g., USA)
– Two distinct direct elections by the people:
– President (via popular vote routed through Electoral College).
– Legislature (separate elections for Congress).
– Consequence: different parties can control different branches.
– Parliamentary system (e.g., Germany/UK)
– People elect members of parliament (MPs).
– Parliament selects the Prime Minister/Chancellor.
– Consequence: executive emerges from (and depends on) the legislative majority/coalition.
8) Gridlock: definition, causes, and parliamentary mitigation
– Gridlock defined: when institutional separation and party competition prevent agreement and policy change (status quo lock-in).
– Presidential systems’ vulnerability:
– Divided government (e.g., President and congressional majority from opposing parties) produces stalemate.
– In-class prompt: How do parliamentary systems mitigate gridlock?
– Student points and synthesis:
– Majority cabinets (or coalitions) align executive and legislative agendas.
– PM’s selection by parliament encourages cooperation and coalition-building from the outset.
– Party programs negotiated prior to government formation set a shared legislative plan.
– Bottom line: fusion of executive and legislative majorities reduces the incidence/duration of gridlock.
9) Accountability and checks: contrasting tools
– U.S. (separation of powers)
– Congress beyond lawmaking:
– Oversight and agenda control (can block bills from reaching the President).
– Impeachment/removal processes for executive accountability.
– Design intent: legislature actively limits executive overreach.
– Parliamentary systems (fusion of powers challenge)
– Problem posed: If PM comes from parliament, can parliament meaningfully check the PM?
– Common solutions introduced:
– Vote of no confidence: parliament can trigger a leadership test/new government at virtually any time.
– Question time: regular, public interrogation of the PM by MPs to force transparency and defend decisions.
– Terminology:
– Presidential: “separation of powersâ€�
– Parliamentary: “fusion of powersâ€� (not fully merged; still distinct, but institutionally intertwined with bespoke accountability tools).
10) Closing, prep, and assessments
– Next class (Thursday): simulation/role-play of institutional decision-making (students act as legislators or executive members working through committees and government structure).
– Reading assigned for Thursday: ~90 pages on executive-legislative relations and system design (introduces “separationâ€� vs. “fusionâ€� of powers terminology).
– Midterm: two weeks from today (Tuesday); reminder to prepare.
Actionable Items
Immediate (before Thursday)
– Distribute/confirm access to the ~90-page reading; remind students to complete it fully for Thursday’s simulation.
– Prepare materials/briefs for the legislative vs. executive simulation (committee roles, rules of procedure, agenda items, and decision criteria).
– Meet with late-arriving students (as requested) to finalize attendance corrections; specifically follow up with Sano (student asked to see instructor after class).
Short-term (this week)
– Clarify expectations for evidence quality:
– Germany groups: strengthen causal links (federalism/polls/refugee data) to democratic quality; focus on institutional protections and contestation.
– Pakistan groups: refine “Islam as ideologyâ€� vs. “religion influencing political ideologyâ€�; compare across Islamic states to differentiate models.
– USA groups: prepare a concise explainer on the Electoral College and its implications for democratic representation.
– Provide a brief primer or optional sources on “illiberal democracyâ€� to support ongoing debates (Germany, Egypt, historical cases).
Assessment and Planning (next two weeks)
– Midterm (in two weeks):
– Publish scope, format, and study guide (institutional design, regime typologies, checks/balances, gridlock, selection mechanisms).
– Offer review session or office hours.
– Fact-check queue:
– Verify the cited 2025 Hungarian constitutional amendment details and source (Euronews), and the 2020 opposition-limiting law reference; compile into a short fact sheet for feedback to the Hungary group.
Attendance follow-up
– Record absentees: Arsthan, Dastan, Husni Dean, Aijamal, Aziret, Begayim.
– Check patterns of repeated absence and communicate as needed.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Prepare Reading on Executive Systems (Presidential vs Parliamentary)
You will read and take notes on the assigned approximately 90-page text comparing presidential and parliamentary systems so you can connect our class discussion (USA vs. Germany, checks and balances, gridlock, votes of no confidence, and question hour) to Thursday’s in-class simulation where you will act as legislators or executive officials making decisions in committees.
Instructions:
1) Access the assigned Week 8 reading on political institutions that contrasts presidential and parliamentary systems and introduces “separation of powers� (presidential) versus “fusion of powers� (parliamentary). This is the “reading for Thursday� referenced in class.
2) Preview the text (5–10 minutes):
– Skim the table of contents, headings, and subheadings.
– Locate sections that define: executive selection, legislative formation, checks and balances, judicial review, gridlock, vote of no confidence, and question hour.
3) Read actively and annotate:
– Mark the core definitions and mechanisms:
– Presidential system: citizens vote in separate elections for the executive (president) and the legislature (e.g., Congress); stronger separation of powers; potential for gridlock.
– Parliamentary system: citizens elect parliament; parliament selects the prime minister/chancellor; fusion of powers; accountability via vote of no confidence and question hour.
– Checks and balances; judicial review; gridlock (why it arises and its consequences).
– Highlight examples that illustrate these concepts (e.g., how the U.S. elects both president and Congress; how Germany’s Bundestag selects a chancellor; how impeachment differs from a vote of no confidence).
4) Connect the reading to our class cases:
– For the USA: note the two separate elections (president and Congress), the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional review, and why divided government can create gridlock.
– For Germany/UK-style systems: note how parliamentary majorities form, how a vote of no confidence works, and the purpose of question hour (prime ministerial accountability).
– Optionally relate to other countries discussed (Hungary, Pakistan) to distinguish regime type issues from institutional design.
5) Build a one-page note sheet for your own use on Thursday:
– Create a side-by-side comparison chart:
– Who selects the executive; how the legislature is chosen; typical executive–legislature relationship; key accountability tools (impeachment vs. vote of no confidence; question hour; judicial review).
– Add 2–3 bullet points on how each system handles or fails to handle gridlock.
– Write brief definitions for: separation of powers, fusion of powers, checks and balances, gridlock, vote of no confidence, question hour, federalism.
6) Prepare for Thursday’s simulation:
– Draft 3 talking points you could use if you’re assigned to the executive or the legislature (e.g., how to pass a law efficiently in each system; how to respond to gridlock).
– Write 2 questions you would ask a prime minister during question hour (or, if in a presidential context, 2 points about how Congress should check the president).
7) Timing and completion:
– Complete the reading and notes before Thursday’s class; bring your notes for in-class use.
– No separate submission is required; your preparation will support your participation in the simulation.