When justice answers to the president: Reexamining the effect of cabinet partisanship on human rights in presidential democracies

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Holzer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Presidential Democracies

scholarly journals Emergencies: on the misuse of government powers

Public Choice ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Bjørnskov ◽  
Stefan Voigt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Natural Disasters ◽  
Natural Disaster ◽  
The State ◽  
Unexpected Result ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Presidential Democracies

AbstractNine out of 10 constitutions contain explicit emergency provisions, intended to help governments cope with extraordinary events that endanger many people or the existence of the state. We ask two questions: (1) does the constitutionalization of emergency provisions help governments to cope with disasters and other extraordinary events? (2) What particular parts of emergency constitutions fare best? We find that the more advantages emergency constitutions confer to the executive, the higher the number of people killed as a consequence of a natural disaster, controlling for its severity. As this is an unexpected result, we discuss a number of potential explanations, the most plausible being that governments use natural disasters as a pretext to enhance their power. Furthermore, the easier it is to call a state of emergency, the larger the negative effects on basic human rights. Interestingly, presidential democracies are better able to cope with natural disasters than parliamentary ones in terms of lives saved, whereas autocracies do significantly worse in the sense that empowerment rights seriously suffer in the aftermath of a disaster.

scholarly journals The perils of plurality rule and the major(itarian) effect of cabinet composition on human rights in presidential democracies

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316801879475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Holzer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Plurality Rule ◽  
Absolute Majority ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Presidential Democracies

I argue that when presidents are able (or forced) to cobble together broad-based coalitions to win an absolute majority, their administrations are less likely (and less able) to violate human rights, in comparison to presidential administrations whose victories are the result of a narrow plurality. Consistent with this argument, I find cabinets comprised of a higher percentage of individuals from parties other than that of the president to be associated with greater government respect for human rights. Additionally, I find that in the years after a presidential election won by an absolute majority, states are more likely to experience an increase in government respect for human rights, in comparison to the years after a presidential election won by a mere plurality. Utilizing an original dataset of cabinet composition for 35 presidential democracies spanning from 2001 to 2011, this study concludes that it may prudent for non-majoritarian systems to consider adopting a mandatory majority rule so to encourage the types of conciliatory alliances that appear to promote high human rights respect.

scholarly journals Human rights in presidential democracies : does a runoff rule reduce repression?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Joshua Holzer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Large Distance ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Median Voter ◽  
Ideological Position ◽  
Negatively Associated ◽  
High Government ◽  
Presidential Democracies

I argue that within a democratic context the presence of a presidential runoff rule leads to the following outcomes: a reduced distance between the ideological position of the president and the median voter, a reduced percent of the cabinet in the same party as the president, and a reduced likelihood that the president is elected without a majority. Additionally, I argue that a large distance between the ideological position of the president and the median voter, cabinets comprised of a high percent of members in the same party as the president, and presidents elected without a majority are all negatively associated with high government respect for human rights. Since the presence of a runoff rule reduces determinants that are in turn negatively associated with high government respect for human rights, the presence of a runoff rule is likely positively associated with high government respect for human rights. Ultimately, I find that democratic presidential elections held using a runoff rule produce presidents that are less likely to be associated with lower government respect for human rights, and more likely to be associated with greater government respect for human rights. In order to promote government respect for human rights, I suggest that constitutional designers embrace the idea of instituting a presidential runoff rule. Simply put: a relatively easy way to reduce repression is to add the possibility of a runoff round to all democratic presidential elections.

scholarly journals The effect of two-round presidential elections on human rights

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243094
Author(s):  
Joshua Holzer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Plurality Rule ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
High Government ◽  
Presidential Democracies

Recent research suggests that democratic presidential elections held using a runoff rule produce presidents that are more likely to protect human rights, in comparison to those elected under plurality rule; with this follow-up article, I seek to highlight the importance of advancing to a runoff round for those elections held using a runoff rule. I find that for presidential democracies that already have a runoff rule in place, country-years where the president has been elected after a runoff round are more likely to be associated with high government respect for human rights, in comparison to country-years where the president has been elected after only one round (that could have advanced to a runoff round, but did not). This article provides decision-makers with more information regarding the human rights consequences of runoff rounds, so that the costs and benefits of adopting (or retaining) variations of a runoff rule can be better weighed.

Human Rights and Law

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Kumar Tiwari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document