Autonomy of Standing Committees in the Chilean Senate

1970 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-50
Author(s):  
Weston H. Agor

One of the most provocative statements in Jewell and Patterson's recent textbook on the American legislative process is that there is an inherent contradiction between political party and committee leadership. They posit: ‘Where committees are strong and independent, party leadership is weak. Where party leadership is strong, the committees are either weak or simply agents of the party leaders.’ As an example, the authors argue that congressional committees in the United States are strong, proud and independent, whereas the leadership of political parties is comparatively weak. This independence is based in part on the fact that chairmen of committees are selected by seniority and traditionally have not been removed by party leaders. Party lines are often crossed in the voting within committee, and chairmen have considerable say over whether a bill will be reported out or not.

The Border ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 146-176
Author(s):  
Martin A. Schain

This chapter examines the growing politicization of border control policy in Europe. It first examines why the border has become important at all at a time when some have argued that borders are increasingly less relevant. The relatively easy movement of migrants into Europe until the 1970s was matched by the easy movement across the soft northern and southern borders of the United States at the same time. How, then, did the issue of the border become increasingly salient? This chapter argues that the developing political salience of the border has been the principle result, first of the reframing of the question of immigration by political party leaders as a failure by the state to control the challenge to identity. Party leaders and electoral competition have then mobilized public opinion around issues of border control as a political priority. This has taken place in the context of cross-border population movements within Europe, and by increased numbers of asylum seekers seeking entry into Europe.


Author(s):  
Marc J. Hetherington ◽  
Thomas J. Rudolph

Trust in government in the United States has become increasingly polarized along partisan lines. Republicans and Democrats are now quite reluctant to trust government when the other party is in power. This chapter explores the sources and consequences of polarized political trust. Analysis of panel data suggests that polarized trust is the result of negative affect toward opposing partisans and a motivated reasoning process in which partisans place greater weight on the evaluative criteria that favor their preferred political party. The chapter further shows that polarized trust has important consequences for individuals’ policy preferences. We explain how the polarization of political trust has contributed to ongoing political dysfunction in Washington. In particular, the results suggest that the polarization of trust encourages party leaders to do what is best for their political party even if it is not best for the larger public interest.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fortunato Musella

IntroduzioneParty leaders have become more powerful and autonomous actors in recent years by developing a direct and personal relationship with citizens. As anticipated in the United States (Lowi, 1985), the rise of the ‘personal leader’ seems to have occurred in many European democracies, both in old parties and in more recently formed parties, with a widespread tendency for them to be promoted and controlled by individual leaders. Nevertheless, party leadership remains quite a neglected theme in political science. Through a data set including ~500 party presidents in 13 democracies, this article focusses on the personalization of party leadership by comparing Italy with other Western countries. More particularly, new procedures for the selection of party chairs, the centralization of power in political parties, and the new role of party leaders in the legislative/governmental arena are analysed, given their importance to such a process. The article summarizes new data on the party leaders’ characteristics, with regards to their political backgrounds, how they are elected, how long they stay in office, and whether they become prime minister or enter the executive. In this way, we are able to see how some new parties are created from the outset as highly personalized and centralized parties (Forza Italia being the paradigmatic case), whereas other older parties have also evolved in a personalized direction.


1984 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 561-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Loewenberg

When undergraduates want to study legislatures, more often than not their choice is limited to a course on Congress, although they may find a course on the legislative process which includes attention to state legislatures. This is hardly a cause for student discontent. The first, and often the only, ambition of political science students is to learn about the American system of government. That is why the introductory course in the discipline is usually a course in American government, why courses on state and local politics are entirely concerned with the United States, why courses on political parties are really about the Democratic and Republican parties, and why there are hardly any courses on the executive at all since the only subject in that area which is taught is the American presidency.It was not always so. A century ago, as curricula in political science developed in American universities, a general, theoretical concept of politics, derived from continental and particularly German approaches to the subject predominated. The focus on American politics came a full generation later, inspired by a concern for citizenship training and by the prospect of large captive audiences in classrooms of students fulfilling teacher certification requirements.America First was consistent with the mood of the United States in the 1920s, but less so in the 1930s and 1940s. In those decades student interest in non-American politics revived in response to the nation's involvement in world affairs, and this interest was expressed in the curriculum by separate courses, often misnamed “comparative government.” These were frequently courses in a series of major foreign governments, shaped by the writing and teaching of a new cohort of emigré faculty who revived the European influence on American political science. In this form the study of what was called “comparative government” gained a larger place in the curricula of departments of political science. But as a subfield of the discipline, comparative government remained too small, and the approach was too country-specific, to permit sub-specialization except by geographic areas. There was no place in it for courses on non-American legislatures, or executives, or political parties.


1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter J. Stone

Many students of the United States Congress have contended that the institution is too closely tied to the interests of members' local constituencies. While the responsiveness this charge implies may seem laudable, the localism said to exist, especially in the House, weakens national agents of representation such as the political parties. Institutional features like seniority and the norm of reciprocity are often criticized for the premium they place upon members' success in their local constituencies, and the narrow, particularistic policy which results. Those who prefer a legislature responsive to national interests lament the disproportionate influence of constituencies with well-placed representatives on the committees and subcommittees in the House, and the fragmented, ‘distributive’ character of the legislative process.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Mauricio Y. Izumi ◽  
Danilo B. Medeiros

ABSTRACT This research note explores whether the government-opposition dimension that emerges from voting records of Brazilian legislatures also arises in legislative speechmaking. Since the earlier stages of the legislative process are innocuous to policy outcomes, party leaders would have fewer incentives to coerce their copartisans’ behavior in speeches than in roll calls. To test this expectation, this study estimates Brazilian political parties’ policy positions, relying on a sentiment analysis approach to classify 64,000 senators’ speeches. The results suggest that the president and the party leadership exert significant influence not only over how legislators vote but also over how they speak. We speculate that these unforeseen findings are backed by the decisiveness of speeches in passing legislation, the importance leadership gives to party brand, and legislators’ need to signal their positions to leaders and the government.


1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1099-1123
Author(s):  
O. R. Altman

The election returns of November, 1936, seemed to portray a democracy strongly united behind a leader and a program of action. It appeared that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal platform had been endorsed by nearly every interest and section in the United States, and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress selected to enact into law those principles for which he “had just begun to fight.” Within six months, however, that unity started to disintegrate. Congress began to dissect carefully the program which the President proclaimed to be both beneficial for the entire country and politically prudent for the political party which he headed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document