Polarization in the Finnish parliament (eduskunta) - Дипломная работа

Polarization in the Finnish parliament (eduskunta) Introduction political eduskint finland Parliament is the highest representative and legislative body in the states where the separation of powers is established. Parliament is a representative body in which the entire population and regions of the country are represented by their chosen representatives. As a rule, the whole parliament, or the lower house of parliament (for example, in federations) is formed through general elections. In modern states, parliaments, as a rule, are legislative bodies, that is, they are empowered to enact laws, and, to some extent, to form and monitor the executive power (for example, to pass a vote of no confidence in the government and impeach the president). Levels of accountability in the legislature are different, because the levels of transparency in them are different, i.e. the more open the process of discussion, the easier it is for citizens to control their representatives. 3. Information and development of expertise. The more the size of the legislature, the higher the level of specialization and competence (in specific questions) of the members of the legislature, and, consequently, the higher the quality of information processing by the members of the legislatures (as experts better analyze their information). As a result, the decision-making process is often fixed for certain Experts. 4. Decision-making. 1) the size of the legislature and the diversity it presents challenge the effective and rapid adoption of political decisions; 2) collective choice problems under a variety of policy options. 3) procedural medicines, including the empowerment of certain legislators or groups of legislators to block proposals or to have exclusive right to make proposals, result in the creation of inequalities between legislators in their ability to influence collective decisions; 4) in modern legislatures, political parties seek to control access to positions that enable them to determine the agenda. 5. Deterrence of the majority and the executive. 1) an unlimited majority can lead to a violation of minority rights by no one and no one. The ability to limit the majority in the legislature is determined by the procedures for the operation of the legislature. The opposition can use the legislature to criticize and block the actions of the majority (including coalition majority); 2) political decisions are made not only by the legislature, but also by the executive, so the legislatures can challenge the executive branch on a particular issue in the decision-making process. The ability to restrict other players outside the legislature is determined by the peculiarities of the separation of powers and the features of the division of powers between the legislature chambers; 3) deterrence can hinder decision making in the short term, but contribute to the stability of policy courses in the long term. Parliament’s formation depends on the type of electoral and party system in the country. Since the parliament exercises one of the main branches of government in public administration, it is important to understand how it functions and how parties interact in the development of decisions, because the effectiveness and quality of the Parliament’s work depends on it. Hence, with different forms of government, the Parliament can have different powers. In accordance with Shugart and Carey (1992) configuration of the legislative and executive powers should influence how Parliament behaves, namely, it affects the degree of polarization of parties in Parliament and, accordingly, sets the vector of their behavior. Voters choose among individual candidates. In Finland preliminary voting is very common. Thus, 45% of voters give their votes during the preliminary voting in the 2011 elections. The electoral system of Finland is highly targeted at candidates, this system is called an open list system, and it is reflected in three aspects (Arter, 2008; Soderlund, «Unpublished Source»). The first one is citizens‘ voting behavior: plenty of Finns think that the candidate as much important as party. The second aspect is campaigning, namely, the fact that during the election campaign in Finland there is more competition within parties than between parties. Also election race is characterized by weak engagement of the national-level party organization in candidate selection. The national party organization and leadership primarily only act as a background resource, provide campaign materials and, through the leader of the party, provide parties with a public face. The responsibility of the candidates themselves and their support groups is to raise funds and disseminate information, an important role in the financing of candidates campaigns is played by private donations. The third thing is parliamentary work. Although the Finnish parties can be characterized as sufficiently centralized between the elections, there is a decentralized process of selecting candi