Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival:
Parliamentary and Presidential
Democracies Reconsidered
José Antonio Cheibub
Yale University
Department of Political Science
New Haven, CT 06511
United Statesjose.cheibub@yale.edu
andFernando Limongi
Universidade de São Paulo
Departmento de Ciência Política
São Paulo, SP 05508-900
Brazilfdmplimo@pop.usp.br

Forthcoming in Annual Review of Political Science 2002

Acknowledgments: We thank Adam Przeworski, Tasos Kalandrakis and, especially, Argelina
Cheibub Figueiredo, who has participated in many of the conversations that led to this paper. We also
thank the Leitner Program in International Political Economy at Yale University for support for thisresearch and the Fundação de Pesquisa e Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for
providing the conditions for us to work on this paper together.

Abstract
We review arguments and empirical evidence found in the comparative literature that bear on the
differences in the survival rates of parliamentary and presidential democracies. Most of thesearguments focus on the fact that presidential democracies are based on the separation of executive
and legislative powers, while parliamentary democracies are based on the fusion of these powers.
From this basic distinction several implications are derived which would lead to radically different
behavior and outcomes under each regime. We argue that this perspective is misguided and that wecannot deduce the functioning of the political system from the way governments are formed. There
are other provisions, constitutional or otherwise, that also affect the way parliamentary andpresidential democracies operate and that may counteract some of the tendencies that we would
expect to observe if we were to derive the regime’s performance from its basic constitutional
principle.

Introduction
The idea that the form of government influences the survival of democracies was one of the mostdebated issues among students of comparative politics in the late 1980s and 1990s. The argument firstdeveloped by Juan Linz about the superiority of parliamentary over presidential institutions, guided
much of the discussion about the prospects of democracies born in the wake of the so-called third
wave of democratization. It is not too much to say that a conventional wisdom emerged among
comparative politics scholars to the effect that, if these democracies were to succeed, they should
adopt parliamentary institutions.
Indeed, parliamentary democracies seem to outperform presidential democracies in many key aspects,
notably in their capacity to survive under a wide set of conditions. Between 1946 and 1999, one inevery twenty-tree presidential regimes died (that is, became a dictatorship), whereas only one in every
fifty-eight parliamentary regimes died. At very low levels of economic development, say at a levelsuch as the one observed in Sub-Saharan Africa, neither parliamentary nor presidential democracies
are likely to survive: one in every eight democracies, of either type, dies in these circumstances. At
higher levels of development, however, things are different. Not only are parliamentary democracies
consistently more likely to survive than presidential democracies, their chances of survival under
economic crisis are at least as good as the chances of survival of presidential democracies under
economic expansion.1 Moreover, as Przewoski et al (2000) report, although presidential democracies
are more likely to emerge out of military dictatorships than out of civilian dictatorships, and thus are
more likely to die for this reason, we still find that, once origin is held constant, democracies that arepresidential can expect to live less than democracies that are parliamentary.
This fact has commonly been interpreted as evidence that the instability of presidential democracies
stems from the principle of separation between executive and legislative authorities, which
distinguishes them from parliamentarism. A number of implications are derived from this basic
difference which would explain why survival rates differ across these democratic regimes. Thus, thefusion of powers characteristic of parliamentarism is supposed to generate governments capable ofgoverning because they would be supported by a majority in parliament, composed of highly
disciplined parties prone to cooperate with one another, which, together, would produce a decisionmaking process that is highly centralized. Presidential regimes, in turn, would frequently generatepresidents who cannot count with a majority of seats in congress. Congress would be composed byindividual legislators who have little incentive to cooperate with one another, with their parties orwith the executive. As a consequence, decision-making under presidentialism would be highly
decentralized. Presidential regimes, therefore, would be characterized by weak political parties andfrequent stalemates between the president and congress in a context of loose decision-making. Since
presidential regimes lack a mechanism that can be invoked to resolve conflicts between executives
and legislatures, such as the votes of confidence or censure of parliamentary regimes, minority
presidents, divided government and deadlock would provide incentives for actors to search for extra-

1

These figures are based on the Regime and Development Database, available at
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jac236/
1constitutional means of resolving their differences, thus making presidential regimes prone toinstability and eventual death.2
This view, however, is in many ways problematic. Parliamentary and presidential regimes are indeed
based on different constitutional principles when it comes to government formation, and this is acentral choice in any democratic constitution. However, the operation of the political system cannot
be entirely derived from the mode of government formation. There are other provisions, constitutionalor otherwise, that also affect the way parliamentary and presidential democracies operate and that
may counteract some of the tendencies that we would expect to observe if we were to derive theregime’s entire performance from their basic constitutional principles. Moreover, even if theseprinciples were the main factor in shaping incentives under parliamentary and presidential systems,
it would not be sufficient to simply stipulate that they are different and that hence outcomes shouldbe also different. One would need to specify the ways in which certain institutional features affectwhich incentives and with what consequence.
In this paper we review arguments and empirical evidence found in the comparative literature thatbear on the differences in the performance of parliamentary and presidential regimes that emerge outof the alleged differences in incentives that these constitutional frameworks generate. We will focus
on three areas which, according to the traditional view, give an advantage to parliamentary regimes:
legislative majorities, incentives for cooperation, and the centralization of the decision-making
process. Although we believe that parliamentarism does outperform presidentialism when it comesto survival, we also have good reasons to doubt that we understand what causes this difference. And
this is why we believe it is worth returning today to a theme about which, some believe, we alreadyknow everything that there is to be known.
The “majoritarian imperative”
There is, so to speak, a majoritarian imperative in parliamentarism. At least this is what theconventional view about this regime implies. This imperative would follow from the very definitionof parliamentary democracies.
Parliamentarism, according to this view, is a regime in which the government, in order to come to andstay in power, must enjoy the confidence of the legislature. Since these are systems in which decisions
are made according to majority rule, it follows that no government under parliamentarism will exist
that does not enjoy the support of a majority. Minority governments could occasionally emerge, butthese would be relatively infrequent and necessarily ephemeral since they would simply reflect thetemporary inability of the current majority to crystalize. This inability is temporary for the system

2

The original formulation of this view was, of course, Linz (1978), elaborated in Linz (1994).
This view has become widespread and can be found in, among others, Stepan and Skach (1993);
Mainwaring and Scully (1995); Valenzuela (1994:136); Jones (1995a:34, 38); Ackerman (2000:645);
Linz & Stepan (1996:181); Niño (1996:168-169), Hartlyn (1994:221), González & Gillespie(1994:172), and Huang (1997:138-139).
2

contains automatic correctives for these situations: either a new government supported by a majority
will be formed or, if this is not possible, new elections will be held so that such a majority may
emerge.
Presidential regimes, in contrast, lack the majority imperative. But majorities also matter underpresidentialism. In these systems voters have two agents who, by design, do not necessarily represent
the same majority. These agents have fixed terms in office and do not depend on each other to exist.
If elections result in a situation in which the presidential party does not control a majority oflegislative seats, there is no mechanism to solve the conflicts between the two legitimate majorities.
The most likely outcome, it is believed, is stalemate and impasse between the executive and thelegislative, which can ultimately result in the collapse of the democratic regime.
There are, however, several theoretical and empirical arguments that suggest that the majoritarian
imperative that supposedly distinguishes parliamentarism and presidentialism, is neither an imperative
nor sufficient to distinguish them.
In the first place, as conclusively demonstrated by Strom (1990), it is not true that parliamentary
governments will necessarily produce majority governments, and most importantly, it is not true that,when they do not, the minority governments that emerge should be seen as a sign of crisis or of
malfunction of the political system. This issue will be taken in more detail below when we discusscoalition formation. Here it is sufficient to say that, as Cheibub et al (2001) show, minority
governments existed in 22% of the time in parliamentary regimes from 1946 to 1999. Other counts(e.g., Strom 1990, Cheibub 1998), based exclusively on industrialized democracies, find that about
one-third of governments formed under parliamentarism have a minority status.
More importantly, Strom’s analysis shows that minority governments are not necessarily a sign ofpolitical instability. Rather, the emergence of minority governments can be explained in terms of thecalculus made by party leaders about the costs and benefits of participating in government, given thatthey are concerned not only with achieving office, but also with the policies that are to be
implemented by the government. This calculus, Strom argues, is affected by the degree of policy
influence parties can exert out of the government, as well as the competitiveness and decisiveness ofthe electoral process. Out-of-government policy influence, in turn, depends essentially on theorganization of parliament (existence of standing committees, degree of specialization, scope ofaction, allocation rules); electoral decisiveness and competitiveness depend on the clarity of theelectoral alternatives presented to voters (identifiability), the degree with which the distribution ofseats fluctuates from party to party between elections (competitiveness), the direct relation between
electoral success and government participation (responsiveness), and proximity between theoccurrence of elections and the formation of the government.
Thus, it is simply not true that majority governments are the expected outcome of government
formation under parliamentarism. Whether they are, depends on a series of institutional traits that are
not part of what defines a democracy as parliamentary.
From a different angle, there is evidence that minority governments under presidentialism, although3frequent, are not as widespread as we would expect them to be. Cheibub (2002), from whom table
1 was adapted, shows that about 40% of the years of presidentialism between 1946 and 1996 wereexperienced under minority governments, a number that is not too far from the estimates forparliamentary regimes. These cases, as he shows, do not occur randomly. As suggested by
Mainwaring (1993), Jones (1995) and Shugart (1995), the frequency of minority presidential
governments is associated with the number of political parties (although not in the expected way),with the type of electoral system, and with the electoral cycle. However, as Cheibub (2002)
demonstrates, the occurrence of minority governments has no impact whatsoever on the survival ofpresidential democracies.
*** Table 1 here ***As for deadlock, the specter that supposedly haunts presidentialism, Cheibub (2002) shows that it isneither pervasive nor is it associated with regime breakdown. As he argues, deadlock will only occur
when the preferences of a majority cannot prevail. These situations depend both on the share of seats
controlled by the party of the president in congress and on specific institutional features regarding
presidential veto and legislative override of the presidential veto: whether the president has vetopower; the type of congressional majority necessary to override the presidential veto; whether thesystem is unicameral or bicameral; and whether, in bicameral systems, veto override is by a vote ineach chamber separately or in a joint session of both chambers. In combination with the share of seats
held by the government, these factors allow one to distinguish three situations: presidential
dominance, opposition dominance, or legislative deadlock. The latter will only occur when thepresident is likely to veto a bill approved by a majority in the legislature, but that majority is not
sufficient to override the presidential veto.
If arguments about the perils of presidentialism are correct, presidential democracies should facehigher risks of dying when conditions for deadlock between the president and congress are present.
Yet, as we can see at the bottom of table 1, this is not the case. The difference in the transition
probabilities for deadlock and no-deadlock situations, although in favor of the former, is rather small:one in every 26 presidential democracies dies when there is deadlock, one in every 31 when there isno deadlock. This difference does not seem to warrant the level of concern with deadlock that is often
expressed in the comparative literature on presidentialism. The belief that the survival prospects ofpresidential democracies is compromised when presidential parties do not hold a majority of seats incongress or when deadlock situations exist has no empirical basis.
As for deadlock in parliamentary regimes, the argument is that it will never occur. Indeed,
parliamentary regimes are designed in such a way that whenever there is a deadlock between thegovernment and the legislature, either the government changes or the legislature changes. Thus,
although divided government may also exist under parliamentarism (for example with minority
governments), the fact that the government in these systems exists only as long as there is noalternative majority that can replace it distinguishes them from presidential regimes: ultimately divided
government in parliamentarism cannot produce deadlock, at least not deadlock in the same sense that
we think of under presidentialism.

4

Yet, the fact that under parliamentarism there is a mechanism that can be invoked in the face of policy
conflict between the government and the legislative majority does not mean that this mechanism will
always be invoked, or that, once invoked, it will necessarily put an end to the disagreement that led
to its use. For this reason, deadlock under parliamentary regimes may take place over time, as when
governments succeed governments and no stable majority is formed even after new elections are held.
The discussion so far has been guided by the supposition that the existence of a majority, either inparliamentarism or in presidentialism, would automatically mean the ability of the government togovern. However, the scope of action available to the government can also be reduced as it seeks toobtain majority status. Here what matters is both the number of parties that have to come together
in order for a majority to exist, and the cohesion of the party (or parties) that belong to the majority.
If we think in spatial terms, we can see that government action is necessarily limited to the area that
contains policy proposals preferred by its supporters over the status quo. That area, however, may
be small, and it may become smaller as governments attempt to broaden its base of support; that is,
as it attempts to secure the support of a majority in the legislature. As Tsebelis (1995) has
demonstrated, policy change in democratic regimes is associated with the number of actors who canveto a proposal. The number of veto players, in turn, is a function of both institutional and ideologicalvariables: policy stability increases with the number and the cohesion of, and the distance among, theparties that belong to the government.
There is no doubt that this will affect the policies pursued in a given system. Whether it will affect thesurvival of the regime, or whether this effect will be larger under presidentialism than underparliamentarism, cannot be specified a priori. But the point is that governments may have to pay theprice of policy immobility in order to form a majority. And this price may have a negative effect on
the survival of the democratic regime.
Incentives for Cooperation
Parliamentary regimes are supposed to foster cooperation. Political parties have an incentive tocooperate with one another; parties in government will support the executive, and parties out of thegovernment will refrain from escalating conflicts due to the possibility that they may, at any time,
become part of the government; individual members of parliament will also align themselves with their
parties. The end result are governments who are supported by a majority composed by highly
disciplined parties, prone to cooperate with one another. Presidentialism, on the other hand, ischaracterized by the absence of such incentives and hence is likely to generate governments that, evenif supported by a majority, are based on parties that are not disciplined and tend to fiercely competewith each other.
There are, in fact, two distinct issues here. The first has to do with the discipline of political parties.
The second has to do with coalition governments; that is, with the propensity that parties will haveto enter into, and stay in, governing coalitions. Although related, these issues must be distinguished.
Party Discipline

5

There are formal and non-formal arguments relating regime type and party discipline, or cohesion inlegislative vote.3 Non-formal arguments originate with Juan Linz and are reproduced by most critics
of presidentialism. In this view, what matters is the legislators’desire to come to and remain in office.
The postulate is that the threat of government dissolution and early elections is necessary andsufficient to induce party discipline. Here is how the argument works.
Under parliamentarism, undisciplined parties may mean a failure to obtain majority support inparliament, the defeat of government bills and, consequently, the fall of the government. In order toremain in government, political parties would enforce discipline so that their members in parliament
can be counted on to support the bills proposed by the government. Individual legislators, in turn,would have an incentive to support the government in order to prevent the occurrence of early
elections and risk losing their positions. Since under presidentialism the government and thelegislature are independently constituted, office-seeking political parties would have no reason to
impose discipline over their members; their survival in office does not depend on the result of any
particular vote in the legislature. Individual members of parliament, in their turn, would also have no
incentive to accept the discipline of political parties (if they were to try to impose it); voting against
the party or the government would not make it any more likely that they would lose their mandates
in early elections.
Thus, given office-seeking politicians, the fusion of power that characterizes parliamentary regimes
would generate incentives for individual legislators and political parties to cooperate with thegovernment, resulting in a high level of party discipline. The separation of power that characterizespresidentialism, in turn, would imply very low levels of party discipline. Even if a president were to
be lucky enough to belong to a party that controls a majority of seats in congress, this fact would notmean that he/she would be able to count on the support of that majority in order to govern. Quite to
the contrary, the president should expect, at least under some circumstances, that no support would
be forthcoming from that majority.4

3

Conceptually party discipline and cohesion are distinct (Ozbudun 1970, Tsebellis 1995).
Empirically, however, we can only observe a group of legislators voting together, either as an
expression of their true preferences or as the result of disciplinary measures. As Bowler et al (1999)
note, this distinction only matters when cohesion is moderate. If it is very high, then disciplinary
measures are not necessary. If it is very low, it is unlikely that such a heterogeneous group oflegislators will agree to any measure that will make them vote together. Only when it is high enoughso that a group of like minded representatives will accept a common set of constraining rules, but low
enough that they will occasionally find it in their interests to vote against the party’s position, dodisciplinary mechanisms become relevant. In what follows, unless explicitly noted, we use disciplineand cohesion as synonimous.
4
One of the most noted circumstances appears as the end of the presidential term approaches.
As presidential elections near, the argument goes, members of the party of the president will try to
distance themselves from her/him in order to avoid paying the costs associated with the policies
implemented by the government. This argument, of course, does not take into consideration the factthat there may be circumstances in which members of the party of the president may want to identify
6

There are several problems with this argument. At the highest level of generality, the assumption onwhich it is based -- that politicians only care about office -- is not tenable. If it were true thatpoliticians only care about office, we should never observe minority governments since the party incharge of forming a government would always be able to lure some party into the government inorder to compose a majority. Minority governments, however, as we have already seen, are notinfrequent in either parliamentary or presidential regimes.
At a lower level of generality, the standard argument that connects the threat of government
dissolution and party discipline is inconsistent. If at one stage of the argument it assumes that
individual legislators may gain electorally by providing specific benefits to their constituency, it denies
the existence of these benefits at the next stage. Let us consider this point in detail.
Let a key presidential initiative be one that implies losses for a specific group and gains for the wholesociety. Say that the measure in question cuts some special privileges of a given constituency. In thestandard view, presidents have no means to induce legislators to support this kind of proposal. Since
legislators are office seekers they have a clear preference for distributive policies, that is, policies thatconcentrate benefits on their constituencies and disperse the costs. Hence, legislators will do better
if they vote against the presidential initiative and protect their constituency’s narrow interests so thatthey will obtain its vote again in the future. They bear no costs of acting in such a way and they willcollect the benefits when elections are due.
The same would not occur under a parliamentary regime. An identical situation would lead to adifferent result. Since dissolution and early election is a possibility, legislators will prefer to follow
the party line and support the government so that they can guarantee their seats. There are costs tobear since one may loose his or her seat. By calling (or threatening to call) an early election, the prime
minister invites the electorate to judge the behavior of the legislator.
But why would a legislator who voted against the party to protect the interests of his or her
constituency be punished by that same constituency? If the legislator loses the seat in early elections
because it helped bring the government down, it must be because the number of voters who benefitted
from that action is not large enough to prevail electorally. If this is the case, then the legislator should
know that it does not pay electorally to go against the party line and in favor of those voters. In turn,if the number of voters who benefitted from the government defeat is large enough to elect a
representative, then the legislator can safely go against the party line to protect them, since thewith her/him in order to share in the benefits of the policies implemented by the government.
Implicitly, this argument assumes that control over the government brings no electoral benefit andthat presidents are not able to transfer votes for the politicians who support her/him. This, however,does not seem to be the case. Data on the rates of presidential reelection when term limits are notpresent show that incumbency is indeed a big advantage. See, for instance, Cheibub & Przeworski(1999). Note, in addition, that, as Baron (1998) demonstrates, the effect of forthcoming elections on
the support for the government, if any, should also be expected under parliamentarism.
7

legislator can expect to survive an early election.5 Therefore, with purely office-seeking politicians,
early elections are not a credible threat to induce party discipline.
Hence, one needs something else to argue that the threat of dissolution leads to party discipline. In
the standard argument there is a non-stated presumption that in parliamentary regimes voters basetheir vote on party labels and not on individual politicians. In other words, a presumption that underparliamentarism the electoral connection will be necessarily different from the one that prevails in the
US Congress, as analyzed by Mayhew (1974). But whether voters vote on the basis of party labels
or of legislators’personal attributes is not necessarily related to the form of government.
As a matter of fact, electoral laws, and not the form of government, are usually seen as the main
factor determining whether voters will vote according to personal or party attributes in a given
system. In Carey & Shugart’s (1994) attempt to rank electoral systems according to the kind of
incentives they provide, the key factor is the control parties exercise over the chances a politician has
to get elected or reelected. This control, in turn, depends on the access to the ballot, on the rules fortransferring votes within party lists, the choices offered to vote bellow the party level, and the districtmagnitude. Parties are said to be strong and capable of enforcing discipline if these factors work insuch a way as to allow them to affect the probability that a politician will get elected.
Important as the electoral variables may be in affecting the degree of party discipline in a system, theycannot be the whole story. Electoral laws may provide the incentives for legislators to cultivate thepersonal vote (by seeking policies that have concentrated benefits and diffuse costs), but the decision
making process may deny them the means to do so (by centralizing decision making in such a way
as to make the preferences of the individual legislator virtually irrelevant).6 Indeed, as Mayhew (1974)
has shown, the personal vote in the US Congress is closely related to the decentralized decisionmaking process that characterizes its committee system. In turn, as Cox (1987) has demonstrated in
his analysis of 19th century England, a centralized decision-making process may neutralize theelectoral incentives for the cultivation of the personal vote.
Of course what matters here is whether we have reasons to expect that parliamentary governments
will necessarily foster a higher degree of centralization in policy-making. Is the process described by
Cox inherent to parliamentarism? Are all presidential regimes like the one described by Mayhew? Inother words, can we take the United States and England to be the paradigmatic cases of presidential

5

Government dissolution, as a matter of fact, should not be always seeing as an undesired
outcome; as Smith (1996) shows in a model of majority governments, early elections are more likely
to be called when the times are good; see also Baron (1998).
6
Here the case of post-1988 Brazil, arguably the presidential system with the most permissive
party legislation in the world, becomes very relevant. As Limongi & Figueiredo (1995) show, in any
roll-call vote taken in the lower house of the Brazilian National Congress since 1988, 9 out of 10
representatives voted according to the recommendation of their party leaders. As they argue, partyof this unexpected level of legislative vote cohesion must be attributed to the organizational structureof congress.
8and parliamentary regimes when it comes to policy-making? We will argue in the next section thatthey are not and that we have no reasons to expect a systematic variation in the centralization ofpolicy-making across the two regimes.
Finally, some of the implications of the standard view of the relationship between mode ofgovernment formation and party discipline are not supported by the facts. The calculus of theindividual legislator under parliamentarism cannot be entirely connected with the risk of election forthe simple fact that early election is not the necessary consequence, or even the most frequentconsequence, of a government dissolution. Cheibub (1998) shows that 56% of all prime ministers in
21 industrialized democracies between 1946 and 1995 changed without elections. In the same data
set he finds that 38% of changes in the party of the prime minister, 46% of changes in the partisan
composition of the government, and 24% of changes in the major party in the government occurred
without elections. Elections are far from being the necessary outcome of government dissolution inparliamentary democracies and hence the costs they represent are not necessarily high and uniformly
distributed across these systems. This is a point that is forcefully made by Mershon (1996 and 1999)
in her studies of coalition formation in Italy and other countries.
On the other hand, as far as presidentialism is concerned, the standard argument assumes that voters
use their two votes independently, that representatives are judged exclusively according to what they
do to defend the narrow and immediate interests of their constituency. Voters do not care about therole their representatives play in the success or failure of the executive. If this were true the electoral
performance of the presidential party at legislative elections should be entirely dissociated from theperformance of the president. Yet, there is considerable evidence to the effect that voters do tend toassociate their vote in presidential and legislative elections: this is why concurrent presidential andlegislative elections would work to reduce the number of political parties competing in a given
political system (Shugart 1995, Shugart and Carey 1992, Jones 1995). Hence, if voters connect theirvotes in executive legislative elections, legislators will have incentives to support the executive insome key votes. Their seats may depend on the good performance of the president.
Formal arguments linking parliamentary regimes with legislative vote cohesion have been recently
developed by Huber (1996), Baron (1998), and Diermeier & Feddersen (1998). Huber (1996)
develops a spatial model of the interaction between the prime minister, the cabinet and the prime
minister’s majority in which he highlights the role of vote of confidence procedures in legislative
outcomes. Baron (1998) and Diermeier & Feddersen (1998) use a model of legislative bargaining toshow how confidence procedures that characterize parliamentary democracies affect legislative
cohesion. These papers represent important advances in the understanding of the functioning ofparliamentary democracies, but they do not necessarily provide a compelling argument to the effectthat levels of legislative cohesion will be higher in parliamentary over presidential democracies.
To begin with, the models proposed by Huber, on the one hand, and Baron and Diermeier andFeddersen, on the other, differ in at least one very important aspect. Whereas the latter models are
explicit in setting up a situation in which there is conflict of interests among political parties so thatlegislative cohesion is not a function of similarity of preferences, this is not the case in Huber’s
analysis. In his case, there is an area of the policy space in which the preferences of all the actors
9overlap, and what the model shows is that the agenda power of the prime minister will allow her topick, in that area, the policy that she prefers. Legislators who go against the government do so inorder to signal to their constituents that they are in fact defending their interests. They do so,
however, knowing that the prime minister will choose a policy that they prefer over the status quo.
The contribution of Huber’s model, in our view, is not to show that vote of confidence procedures
will induce high levels of party discipline in a context of conflicting preferences, but to show, as hehimself notes (Huber 1996:279), that prime ministers are strategically well positioned to obtain
policies that are to their liking and that, hence, political parties are constrained in their ability to shapepolicies after the government is formed.7
Baron (1998) and Diermeier & Feddersen (1998), in turn, explicitly model a situation in which thepreferences of the party or coalition members are in conflict. The mechanism that drives their modelis the control over the legislative agenda that being part of the government affords the parties. It isbecause agenda power guarantees future gains, and it is because the vote of confidence procedureallows the government to link the vote on a policy with the survival of the government and, hence,
to control the legislative agenda, that parties and legislators may find it in their interest to vote now
against their preferences.
Underlying both models, as well as Huber’s (1996:280) is the view of a presidential system such as
the one in the United States, in which agenda setting power lies with the legislature. However, if
presidents can control the legislative agenda much in the same way as prime ministers can, then themechanism that drives party cohesion in parliamentary regimes can also operate under presidentialism.
We will argue in the next section that, indeed, if we consider the full range of existing presidential
regimes, we find that the United States is exceptional in that it grants little or no legislative andagenda power to the executive and hence is by no means representative of what presidents can do.
Here it is sufficient to say that presidential regimes are compatible with executives that hold a highlevel of agenda and legislative powers (see Mainwaring & Shugart 1997). The specific institutional
procedure whereby this is achieved is obviously different from parliamentarism; but the end result mayvery well be the same.
Finally, as Diermeier & Feddersen (1998) state, confidence procedures may be a sufficientinstitutional feature to induce legislative vote cohesion, but it is not a necessary one. Other
mechanisms may exist, some of which are institutional (e.g., centralized legislative organization andexecutive agenda and legislative powers) and some of which are not. In this context, Medina’s (2001)
analysis is particularly relevant since it shows how legislative voting cohesion can emerge from purecongruence of preferences. The implication of his analysis for the discussion here is that itdemonstrates how cohesion does not necessarily depend on disciplinary measures (such as the voteof confidence) and can be obtained under any institutional set up.

7

This suggests a curious, and unexpected, parallel with the complaints of the limited role ofpolitical parties and the legislature in some new, presidential, democratic regimes (O’Donnell 1994).
What is seen as positive trait in parliamentary regimes takes a negative tone when observed inpresidential regimes.
10It seems, thus, that it is not at all clear that the existence of cohesive legislative blocs is endogenous
to the regime type. We should not presume that presidential regimes will invariably generate lowlevels of party discipline in the legislature.

Coalition Government
Recall that the basic argument about coalitions is that presidentialism, contrary to parliamentarism,
does not offer incentives for political parties to cooperate with the government. This fact is supposed
to give rise to legislative paralysis or some other kind of “ungovernability,” with all the attendant
tragedies that are associated with it. Stepan & Skach (1993:17-8) summarize the argument well:“The essence of pure presidentialism is mutual independence. From this defining (andconfining) condition a series of incentives and decision rules for encouraging the
emergence of minority governments, discouraging the formation of durable coalitions,maximizing legislative impasses, motivating executives to flout the constitution, andstimulating political society to call periodically for military coups predictably flows.
Presidents and legislatures are directly elected and have their own fixed mandates.
This mutual independence creates the possibility of a political impasse between thechief executive and the legislative body for which there is no constitutionally available
impasse-breaking device.”
Coalition governments, thus, are considered to be rare and unstable in presidential regimes andfrequent and stable in parliamentary regimes. To this Mainwaring (1992) added the complicating
factor of party system fractionalization. Whereas parliamentary regimes are equipped to deal withsuch situations -- cooperation, remember, is inherent to the regime -- the problems withpresidentialism only get compounded by a multitude of political parties in the legislature.
This argument is problematic in many respects. Most fundamentally, it assumes that the institutional
differences that exist between the two regimes are sufficient to create divergent incentives forcoalition formation. This, however, is not the case. Cheibub et al (2001) show that the circumstances
under which portfolio coalitions are likely to be formed are identical under the two systems.
Here is a summary of their argument. The crucial difference between parliamentarism andpresidentialism, they argue, is the “reversion point,” that is, the situation that emerges if no coalition
is formed. In parliamentary regimes, the reversion point is an early election; in presidential regimes,
since mandates are fixed, it is a situation in which the president keeps all the portfolios. The
implication of this fact is that whereas in parliamentary regimes every portfolio government enjoys
the support of a legislative majority, under presidentialism it is possible that a legislative majority willhold no portfolio. This difference, however, is not sufficient to generate different incentives for theformation of portfolio coalitions. Cheibub et al (2001) show that when the distance in the policy space
between the party of the formateur and the party closest to it is large, portfolio coalitions will beformed in both parliamentary and presidential systems. In these cases the formateur uses portfolios
to bring the policy closer to its own preferences. Alternatively, when the distance in the policy space
11

between the party of the formateur and the party closest to it is small, and together these two parties
would form a majority, no coalition will be formed, again in both parliamentary and presidential
systems. Since policy preferences are close, the formateur can allow policy to be chosen by a party
that is close to it. Given that, by definition, mandates are fixed in presidential regimes, what needs tobe explained is not so much why coalitions are not formed under presidentialism (something that, as
we will see, is not a fact anyway), but why presidents do not always form majority coalitions.
According to Cheibub et al (2001), the reason majority coalitions are not always formed underpresidential regimes has to do with the opposition’s beliefs about how much it would gain electorally
from opposing the president. If the opposition believes that its vote share will increase in the next
elections, it may be willing to stay out of the government, in which case a majority of legislators unite
against the president and the president remains in office for the duration of the term. This is an
outcome that is structurally unavailable under parliamentarism. What is fundamental, though, is notthat this outcome may occur but the fact that, if it occurs, it does not invariably imply impasse or
deadlock between the executive and the legislature. Legislative paralysis is likely to occur only undervery specific institutional configurations, namely, if the legislature cannot initiate legislation, or if thepresident can veto legislation without being overridden. These are indeed, relatively infrequentscenarios: of 20 democratic constitutions examined by Carey et al (1997), 11 did not contain any
provision regarding exclusive introduction of legislation by the executive, while the rest included
partial restrictions – usually involving budget laws and/or the armed forces -- to the legislature’s
ability to initiate legislation. As for veto, in only 4% of the years of presidentialism between 1946 and1999 could the president veto legislation with no legislative override (Cheibub 2002). Thus, althoughpossible under some specific circumstances, a generalized lack of cooperation between executive andthe legislature or chronic legislative paralysis are not the outcomes that would naturally result fromthe structure of incentives in presidential regimes.
Empirical patterns largely support these considerations. Table 2, based on Cheibub et al (2001),
contains the frequency of majority and coalition governments for parliamentary and presidential
regimes according to the share of seats held by the largest party in the legislature. Majority
governments are those governments in which the sum of the seats held by all parties holding
portfolios is larger than 0.50; coalition governments are those in which there are at least two parties
that hold portfolios. We can see that, except for the cases in which one party holds more than 50%of the seats in the legislature, the frequency of coalition governments is higher under parliamentarism
than under presidentialism. The difference, however, is not as large as we would expect if it were truethat presidential regimes do not provide any incentives for coalition formation. When no party holds
a majority of seats in the legislature, coalition governments emerge in slightly over half of the time.
Furthermore, we find that the frequency of coalition and majority governments actually increases
quite significantly when no party holds more than a third of the seats in the legislature. This patternis identical to parliamentary regimes, suggesting, as discussed above, that the incentives for coalition
formation are the same under the two regimes. Thus, contrary to the widespread fear expressed in
the existing literature, the fragmentation of the party system doe not make coalition formation moredifficult in presidential systems.
*** Table 2 here ***12

Even if we grant that incentives for coalition formation are the same under parliamentary andpresidential regimes, one basic difference between them is that the number of possible coalitions underpresidentialism is necessarily smaller than under parliamentarism. This may become a serious problem
when the president is an “outsider” with very little support in congress since the power of his/herparty will be magnified by the fact that that party has to be a member of the government. If this is afrequent occurrence in presidential regimes, then this limitation could become a serious problem. We
have reasons to believe, however, that this is not the case.
As Cheibub et al (2001) report, it is simply not the case that presidents tend to belong to small parties
or be “outsiders.” The probability that the chief executive will belong to one of the two largest parties
is 0.9492 in parliamentary regimes and 0.9279 in presidential regimes. As figure 1 shows, thedistribution of seats held by the party of president and the prime minster is similar under the two
regimes. There is nothing in this distribution suggesting that presidential regimes are more likely thanparliamentary regimes to produce governments headed by “outsiders.”*** Figure 1 here ***Thus, presidential regimes are not particularly prone to producing governments headed by“outsiders.” They also are not considerably more constrained than parliamentary regimes in theprocess of coalition formation. In both regimes the government tends to be headed by the largest
party and this political factor, rather than any formal rule, seems to be sufficient to constraint theprocess of government formation in ways that make the two systems look alike.
What are the consequences of coalition governments under the two regimes? If the cycle describedby Stepan & Skach (1993) were true, we should observe that presidential regimes are less likely tosurvive when the party of the president does not hold a majority of seats in congress and no coalition
is formed. The same should be true for parliamentary regimes. The empirical patterns, however, arecomplex. As table 3 indicates, parliamentary regimes do, in fact, have better chances to survive when
no party obtains a majority of seats in the legislature and coalitions are formed. Presidential regimes,in turn, experience the opposite situation: although the difference is not large (we are talking about
expected lives of 24.5 and 22.6 years, respectively), the formation of coalition governments reduces
survival chances when no party has more than 50% of the seats in congress.
*** Table 3 here ***This, however, is not the whole story. This effect is stronger in presidentialism when the largest party
holds between one-third and one-half of the seats.8 In these cases the expected life of the regime when
coalitions are formed is 13.2 years, compared with an expected life of 24.5 years when no coalitions
are formed. When the largest party holds less than 33.3% of the seats, that is, when the legislature

8

The result is the same if instead of the seats of the largest party we use the seats of the partyof the chief executive to condition the probabilities reported in the upper panel of table 4.
13

is highly fractionalized, coalition formation sharply improves the survival chances of the regime:
expected life with coalition is 54.9 years against 23.9 when no coalitions are formed.
It seems, thus, that it is the level of party fractionalization that determines the effect of coalition
formation on the survival of presidential democracies. When fractionalization is moderate (forinstance, when the effective number of parties is between 3.5 and 4.5, as indicated in the second panelof table 4), coalition governments are highly fragile: their expected life is less than 9 years, comparedwith 26 years when no coalitions are formed. When fractionalization increases, we find, as one would
expect, that coalition governments increase the survival chances of presidential democracies. We saw
above that in situations of high party fractionalization coalitions are more likely to emerge in bothparliamentary and presidential regimes. Now we see that, under these conditions, not only are they
more frequent, but they also significantly improve the chances that democracy will survive.
The reason why coalitions tend to be less frequent and detrimental to the survival of democracy when
the party system is moderately fractionalized is puzzling and deserves to be further investigated. The
third panel in table 4 presents some of the conditions that transpire under moderate and high party
fractionalization and may suggest some clues. When fractionalization is moderate, the party of thepresident is more often the largest party, on the average holds about one-third of the seats and isconfronted with other legislative parties which are, themselves, relatively large. The relative strengthof legislative parties may be what makes coalition so detrimental to presidential democracies underthese conditions. For the moment, however, what needs to be underscored is the fact that it is nothigh levels of party fractionalization, and the difficulties of forming majority coalitions that allegedly
follow from it, that kills presidential democracies.
Thus, it is not true that incentives for coalition formation are different in presidential andparliamentary democracies. It is not true either that presidential regimes with highly fractionalized
party systems will make the task of coalition formation even more daunting; quite to the contrary, thefrequency of coalition governments increases with the fractionalization of the party system in bothpresidential and parliamentary regimes.
Centralization of the Decision-Making Process
From the constitutional point of view, all legislators, whether in presidential or parliamentary regimes,
have the same rights and duties. Their mandates are the same, regardless of the number of votes
received in the electorate, their party affiliation, degree of seniority in the legislature, and so on. Eachlegislator has the same right to propose legislation, to amend propositions made by others, and toparticipate in the process of deliberation. In addition, each legislator’s vote has the same weight. In
principle, therefore, legislatures are egalitarian institutions.
The reality, of course, is quite different. In order to be able to handle its workload, legislaturesorganize themselves in a variety of ways and adopt internal rules that regulate individual legislative
rights and access to resources (Kriebhel 1992:2). Legislative rights and resources are not distributed
in a uniform way. The chances individual legislators have to influence the order of business and tohave a say in decision-making depends upon the legislative rights granted to them by the internal rules
14

of their assembly. Hence, legislative organization affects the structure of the decision-making process
and the weight of legislators in policy decisions.
Discussions of legislative organization usually make reference to two paradigmatic cases: Englandand the United States, a centralized and a decentralized legislature, respectively, and, as we know,a parliamentary and a presidential democracy. Most arguments that we find about decision-making
in democracies contrast these two systems and assume, often implicitly, that all legislatures, and, forthat matter, the decision-making process, are centralized under parliamentarism and decentralized
under presidentialism.
The English parliament is indeed characterized by the complete control of the cabinet over thelegislative agenda. Government bills are appreciated under a special calendar that gives them priority
over bills introduced by individual members of parliament and, as a consequence, parliamentaryminorities have no way to “close the gates” to governmental proposals. In addition, individual
members of parliament are often restricted in their capacity to amend government bills. For instance,since the beginning of the 18th century the government has the sole prerogative to initiate measuresthat increase expenditures (Lowemberg & Patterson 1979:249). Nowadays, it is rare for the budget
presented by the cabinet to be modified by the parliament. In fact, given the high expectations that
it will be approved as submitted, “a provisional resolution places it into effect on the day it isdelivered, though months may pass before its final enactment” (Lowemberg & Patterson 1979:250).
Due to the government’s control over the agenda, legislative output is marked by a high rate ofsuccess for the executive’s initiatives. Propositions made by the cabinet had a 0.97 chance of being
approved for the 1945-1978 period, while bills introduced by back-benchers, irrespective of theirparty affiliation, had a close to zero chance of being approved (Rose 1986:11). This means that thecabinet introduces almost all laws that are approved in parliament. The government legislative success
rests on disciplined party support. Cabinet defeats are rare events. The cabinet entirely monopolizes
the law-making process and, for that matter, all the decisions about policy.
The US Congress, on the contrary, is supposed to be a quite decentralized body, organized as it isaround its strong committee system. In this view, the committee system allows legislators to have a
say in decisions related to policy areas that are of importance for their electoral survival. The story
goes like this. Each committee has the monopoly to initiate legislation in its own policy jurisdiction.
Committees report bills to the floor and, for reasons that are not entirely clear, the floor accepts thebill as reported by the committee.9 Political parties do not control the assignment process oflegislators to specific committees; rather, the process is described as one of self-selection: legislators
pick the committee that has the jurisdiction over the policy area that will bring them the highest
electoral payoff. At the same time electoral considerations dictate that politicians prefer distributive,

9

On this respect see the debate between Kriebhel (1987) and Shepsle & Weingast (1987).
15

pork-barrel policies. The committee system in the US Congress provides the organizational means
to make these distributive policies possible.10
Hence, with England as the prototype of executive-legislative relations in parliamentary regimes, andthe US as the prototypical presidential system, it follows that Tsebelis (1995:325) is correct when hesays that “In parliamentary systems the executive (government) controls the agenda, and thelegislature (parliament) accepts or rejects proposals, while in presidential systems the legislature
makes the proposal and the executive (the president) signs or vetoes then.” The prototypicalparliamentary regime, thus, is one in which the government has a complete control over the legislative
agenda; the rights of the individual members of parliament are “expropriated” and monopolized by
the cabinet. Hence, all individual legislators can do is to support the party line. Voters know that thisis all they can do, and thus have no incentive to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s
personal characteristics Through the control of the legislative agenda, therefore, parliamentarism
would lead to party vote in the electorate and to party discipline in the parliament.11
The prototype of a presidential regime, in turn, is one in which the organization of congress preserved
the rights of individual representatives so that they are able to have a say on policy decisions.
Separation of power leads to independent legislators who act on the basis of their individual electoral
needs; and in response to these needs, they build personal ties with their constituencies. One is thus
led to expect that legislatures in presidential regimes will have strong committee systems andrepresentatives will be elected on the basis of the personal ties they build with their constituencies.
But, as we have known at least since Shugart & Carey (1992), presidential systems are not all alike.
They vary considerably in terms of the degree of legislative powers they grant the president. The US
president, as a matter of fact, is one of the few presidents in existing systems that cannot initiate
legislation. Moreover, the US president can only veto legislation in totten, which weakens its capacity
to oppose distributive bargains produced in congress. Hence, the US presidency is rather unique inthat the president only has “reactive legislative powers” (Mainwaring & Shugart 1997). Not only arepresidents often endowed with the capacity to initiate legislation; often they also have the exclusive

10

This, of course, is the text-book (Shepsle 1989) view of the US Congress, a view that has
been challenged by Kriebhel (1992) and Cox & McCubbins (1993), to cite only the most importantworks. Yet, it is true that even for the informational and the party-as-a-cartel view of Congress, thecommittee system is a key and distinctive feature of the US Congress.
11
High rates of executive success and low participation of individual members in law-making
are, indeed, characteristics of most parliamentary regimes. The data assembled by the Inter
Parliamentary Union (Herman & Mendel 1976) covering the 1971-1976 period register only 3 outof 14 countries with parliamentary regimes in which government legislative success is below 80%.
There is no case in which individual initiatives represent more than 20% of the laws passed. For three
countries, Australia, Ireland and Malta, there is no case of a bill introduced by an individual legislator
that became a law. For the period 1978-82, Hermen & Mendel (1986) register 3 out of 16 countries
with government success below 80% and only 3 with participation of individual members’initiative
above 20%, Austria, Italy and Portugal.
16

right to initiate legislation in some areas (such as appropriation and budgetary matters), whereas
legislators are restricted in their capacity to amend bills in these areas. Hence, contrary to Tsebelis(1995), presidents can do much more than simply sign or veto bills proposed by the legislative.
In addition, some presidents also have decree-power; they are constitutionally able to unilaterally alter
the status quo. Even though there is considerable variation in the specifics of presidential decreepower (Carey & Shugart 1998), often presidential decrees enter into effect first (whether immediately
or not) and the legislature acts second. The legislature acts a posteriori, rejecting, amending or
accepting the new status-quo brought about by the executive decree.12 Given decree-power,
therefore, a president can dictate the legislative agenda by forcing the legislature to make a decision
on some matter it could, otherwise, not have appreciated. Thus, no group in the legislature, not eventhe majority, can “close the gates” for a presidential initiative made by decree.
Note that the power to impose an agenda does not imply that presidents will always prevail against
the will of the majority. In fact, as Huber (1996) shows, since a legislative majority can always rejecta presidential decree, a model of executive-legislative conflict is unable to explain why the executive
would ever make use of decrees. There are, of course, strategic advantages that the agenda setter may
explore. But as Kriebhel (1988:270) has argued, these are not properly anti-majoritarian devices.13
In addition, the government’s legislative and agenda powers, among which decree-power, need not
be interpreted as means for solving "vertical" conflicts, that is, conflicts between the government andthe opposition. Rather, as argued by Huber (1996), the government’s legislative powers are alsomeans for solving “horizontal” conflicts, that is, conflicts between the government and its supporters.
In this sense, these are ways that the government has to protect the cohesion of its coalition against
the opportunistic behavior of its members.14
It follows from this that, because of presidents’ legislative powers, separation of powers inpresidential regimes is not as complete as it is usually considered to be. Presidential legislative powers
are commonly interpreted in the context of the US constitution, that is, as means to create checks and

12

Note that often rejection of a presidential decree does not mean a return to the status quo
ante. Even if there is a majority in favor of the status quo, once the decree has been in effect,
rejecting it may have become an unattractive or unavailable alternative.
13
It is true that, since it immediately alters the status quo, the decree power will increase thepower of the agenda setter. When legislatures have to vote on ordinary propositions, legislators
compare the status quo (SQ) with the situation to be created by the proposition. In the case of an
executive decree, the legislator compares the situation created by the decree (D) with the newsituation created by rejecting a decree that has been in effect for some time (SQD). If the preferencesof the majority are SQ>D>SQD, then the majority will approve the decree. If the preferences of the
majority are SQD>D (assuming that SQ is no longer a viable alternative), then the majority will rejectthe decree.
14
It is interesting to note here that there seems to be no association between minority status
and the use of decree-power (Figueiredo & Limongi 1998).
17

balances. But, as we just have seen, the legislative powers of the executive are not only a mechanism
for checking the power of the majority or imposing the will of the president. They are also weaponsof the majority. Therefore, the fusion of executive and legislative powers is not absent frompresidential systems.
Note that this interpretation is at odds with Shugart & Carey`s (1992) view according to which
presidential systems that endow presidents with considerable legislative powers -- what they callstrong presidents -- have greater probability of experimenting a breakdown. They argue that strong
presidents will have smaller incentives to negotiate with congress and, thus, paralysis and crisis are
more likely. This is so because strong presidents have the institutional means to impose their will on
congress; weak presidents, in turn, know that they have no other alternative than to negotiate. This
argument, however, is based on the “vertical conflict” model and disregards the possibility that thepresident will try to organize a majority in congress. But once the possibility that the president andthe majority have overlapping preferences is considered, then legislative agenda powers need not
imply paralysis, crisis and eventual breakdown.
The organization of congress and the degree of control the executive has over the legislative agenda
does influence the behavior of individual legislators. They act in a constrained environment. If theywant to influence policy, they have to do so according to the rules of procedure of the body they
belong to, and in the terms set by the president. Thus, for example, the incentives to cultivate thepersonal vote that stem from the electoral arena may be entirely neutralized in the legislature thougha distribution of legislative rights that favors the executive. For this reason, we cannot deduce, as it
is commonly done, the behavior of legislators from electoral and party legislation alone.
In this context, the case of Brazil is of central theoretical interest for it provides an example of the
far reaching effects of the centralization of the decision making process. The system produced by the
1988 constitution is frequently cited as the example of bad institutional design (Ames 2001). All of
the institutional choices that should not be made, it seems, were made in 1988: a strong presidential
regime (one of the strongest in the world according to Shugart & Carey’s 1992:155 rank);
proportional representation formula for legislative elections with high district magnitude; very
permissive party and electoral legislation (e.g., open-list and low party control over access to theballot). In such a system, the party system is bound to be fragmented and presidents can be virtuallycertain that their party will not control a majority of seats in both legislative houses. And even if theydid, parties would be highly undisciplined thus making the majority status of the president a mere
formality (Sartori, 1994:113; Mainwaring 1991). Hence, to have their agenda approved, presidents
would use their strong legislative powers, which would lead to conflict and paralysis. To paraphrase
Sartori (1997), the system created in 1988 was nothing but hopeless.
Yet, the performance of the post-1988 Brazilian regime is completely at odds with what we would
expect to find on the basis of this institutional analysis. Brazilian presidents of this period have hadgreat success enacting their legislative agenda. Presidents introduced 86% of the bills enacted since1988 and the rate of approval of the bills introduced by the executive was 78%. Presidents haveformed coalitions to govern, and have been able to reliably obtain the support of the parties thatbelong to the government coalition in approving its legislation: the average discipline of the18

presidential coalition, defined as the act of voting in accordance with the public recommendation of
the government leader in the floor, was 85.6%. This support is sufficient to make a presidential defeat
in a roll call a considerably rare event. Thus, despite the “centrifugal” characteristics of Brazilian
presidentialism, as indicated by the party and electoral legislation, presidents have been able to govern
relying on the support of a disciplined coalition (Figueiredo & Limongi 2000).
This outcome is a result of both the way the Brazilian congress is organized and the president’s ability
to control the legislative agenda. The Brazilian congress is highly centralized. Legislative rights
heavily favor party leaders, who are taken to be perfect agents of their caucuses (bancadas) when it
comes to most procedural decisions (such as the request for roll-call votes, the closing of debates and,most importantly, the designation of a bill as urgent for purposes of appreciation). The urgency
request is a kind of “discharge petition:” it removes the bill from the committee and forces its
immediate (24 hours) deliberation by the floor. Bills that are appreciated as urgent cannot be freely
amended: only amendments signed by 20% of the lower house are accepted, which implies that only
those amendments supported by party leaders will be considered. As Figueiredo & Limongi(2000:157) have shown, the approval of the urgency petition, in turn, is highly associated with thesuccess of a bill. Centralization, thus, deprives members of congress of the legislative rights they needto control in order to influence legislation.
The Brazilian presidents, thanks to their constitutional legislative powers, have a direct influence on
the definition of the legislative agenda. Using its decree-power, the executive places on the agenda
what it deems to be the most relevant and pressing issues. The president can also influence the paceof ordinary legislation by requesting urgency for the appreciation of specific bills (which will give eachhouse 45 days to deliberate on them). The president has also the exclusive right to initiate legislation
related to the definition of the budget, taxation and public administration. Therefore, the executive
monopolizes the legislative initiative on the most crucial areas of policy-making.
Hence, it is via the participation in the government that individual legislators will obtain access toresources they need for political survival: policy influence and patronage. Leaders bargain with theexecutive: they exchange political support (votes) for access to policy influence and patronage. The
executive, thus, provides party leaders with the means to punish backbenchers who do not follow theparty line: their share of patronage may be denied. The executive, in turn, given the resources it
controls, is in a very advantageous position. Party leaders become, in fact, the main brokers in thebargaining between the executive and the legislators. Contrary to what is currently assumed about
Brazil, presidents do not need to bargain on a case-by-case basis. They are in a position to demand
support for their entire legislative agenda. Once the government is formed and benefits are distributed
among the members of the coalition, the president, with the help of party leaders, may threaten
representatives and actually punish those who do not follow the party line. Hence, to say it once
more, the actual pattern of legislative-executive relation in Brazil’s presidential regime is rather
different from what one would expect to find if we were to deduce it from its electoral and partisan
legislation.
It should be clear by now that separation of powers does not necessarily imply decentralized decisionmaking. Institutional analyses that stress the negative effects of separation of powers, and that point19

to specific, often restrictive, electoral laws as a corrective to these effects, entirely miss the point.
Presidentialism does not necessarily imply, or require, decentralized decision-making and conflict
between the executive and the legislative. Once one assumes the possibility that coalition governments
may also exist in presidential regimes, the degree of overlapping between the executive and legislative
majorities has to be adjusted.
Presidential control over the agenda becomes a weapon to be used by the majority and not against
the majority. We can see, thus, that presidents are not necessarily as distinct from prime minister as
it is normally assumed. As we showed above, outcomes that are usually associated exclusively withparliamentarism, such as executive success and dominance over the legislative output obtained
through disciplined parties, can be found even in “hopeless” presidential regimes such as Brazil’s.
Now, if presidential regimes are not all alike, neither are parliamentary systems. That the government
will control the legislative agenda does not follow from the definition of parliamentarism. Neither isit necessary that the legislative rights of private members be curtailed in parliamentary regimes.
Committees may have considerable powers in parliamentary assemblies and may erect barriers to the
executive agenda.15 The weakness of individual members of parliament that characterizes Englandis not inherent to parliamentary governments, as the cases of Italy after 1945 and France in the 3rd and
4th Republics amply illustrate. In both cases, the government had no control over the definition of thelegislative agenda, committees had considerable amount of power and the rights of individual
legislators were not “expropriated.”
In France, until 1911, it was the Chamber presidents who defined the legislative agenda. As Andrews(1978) reports, after this date, a Conference of Presidents assumed control over the definition of theagenda. The government was represented in the Conference, but it was only in 1955 that internal rules
were revised so that voting in the Conference of Presidents was weighted by the proportion of seats
held by each party. The proposed agendas had to be approved by the Chamber and this “often became
an occasion for a vote of non confidence through a device called “interpellation” (Andrews
1978:471). Hence, the government did not have firm control over the definition of the legislative
agenda. On several occasions, “interpellation” led to judgment on the government agenda that caused
the fall of the government.
Besides, committees could act as ‘veto players’, since a report from the committee was necessary forconsideration of a bill by the floor. The government could expedite the committee report but it could
not avoid the report. Therefore, committees could respond to government pressure with anunsatisfactory report. According to Andrews (1978), the 3rd and 4th Republics placed few restrictions
over the ability of private members to propose initiatives that would increase expenditures and reducerevenues. In his words, given the absence of serious restrictions, the government´s financial projects
were often “butchered in parliament” (p.485)

15

Recall that one of the variables used by Strom (1990) to explain the formation of minority
governments in parliamentary regimes was the committee structure of parliaments. Obviously there
must exist some variation in this structure.
20

In Italy one finds the same pattern: the parliament’s independence to set the legislative agenda, strong
committees and legislative rights that favor individual members’capacity to influence decisions. In
the Italian parliament, the presidents of each house, and not the government, define legislative agenda.
Bills introduced by the government have no special calendar or precedence over private members’
bills. Article 72 of the Italian constitution grants standing committees the authority to pass law. This
capacity has been widely used. According to Di Palma (1976), the presidents of both houses decideunilaterally whether a bill will or will not have to be considered by the floor. Di Palma labels thesealternatives as the ‘centralized’ and the ‘decentralized’ procedures. Bills scheduled for the latter
alternative, had a much greater chance of becoming a law. Hence, all a president have to do in orderto “kill” a governmental proposition is to schedule it for the ‘centralized’procedure.
Besides being endowed with the power to pass legislation, Italian committees cannot be discharged
when a bill follows the ‘decentralized’ procedure. Although possible, discharges under the‘centralized’procedure are rarely enforced. The committee chairmen are autonomous to define theiragenda and even to convene their committee. Therefore, not only are committees important decisionmaking bodies, they also can act as veto players. As for individual members of parliament, until the
1988 reform roll-calls were secret and could be easily requested at any stage of the law-making
process (Cotta 1990:77). Hence the government fell prey to the action of the franco attiratori. In
other words, members of the majority could not be sanctioned, either by the government or their
parties.
These are, obviously, not examples of parliamentary regimes in their best performance. So much sothat both systems are often cited as examples of pathological development of parliamentarism andboth have been considerably reformed. But this just emphasizes the point that we are making: theinstability of these systems was a consequence not so much of the form of government, but of the way
decision-making was organized. Although policy performance is important for the survival of ademocratic regime, we cannot deduce it from the basic constitutional principle that defines thisregime. Policy-making under parliamentarism is not necessarily centralized, and the government, asa consequence, is not always very successful in having its policy proposals approved. Similarly,
policy-making under presidentialism is not necessarily decentralized, and the government invariably
immobilized in terms of the policies it can implement.

Conclusion
The difference between parliamentary and presidential democracies does not seem to attract today
the same attention it did ten or fifteen years ago. Then, as several new democracies where in theprocess of choosing their constitutional frameworks, there was a clear sense of urgency attached to
discussions about which system was more likely to survive. Today scholarly imagination has been
captured by more immediate concerns (federalism and corruption seem to be where it has rested, atleast momentarily), while an implicit consensus has emerged to the effect that we know everythingthat needs to be known about “broad” constitutional choices.

21

We disagree with this position. We hope to have showed in this paper that the difference in thesurvival of parliamentary and presidential regimes cannot be explained by the structure of incentives
that supposedly follows from the regime’s basic principles. Parliamentary systems do not operate
under a “majoritarian imperative;” deadlock is not as frequent under presidentialism and is not absent
from parliamentarism; coalition governments are not foreign to presidential systems and are notcostless under parliamentary systems; decision-making is not always centralized underparliamentarism, as it is not always decentralized under presidentialism. The reality of bothparliamentary and presidential regimes is more complex than what it would be if we were to derivethese systems’entire behavior from their first principles.
So what explains the difference? We suspect that the main difference between the two regimes is dueto the way the decision-making process is organized. Lack of coordination on policy-making and theprobability of deadlock increase with the decentralization of the decision-making process. More often
than not, we find parliamentary regimes that have a centralized decision-making process, one in which
the executive has the monopoly over the policy agenda. This, however, as the Italian and French cases
demonstrate, is not a necessary feature of parliamentarism. And, as the case of Brazil demonstrate,
executive legislative powers, in the presence of political parties, allows for a fusion of powers notpredicted by the usual conception of presidential regimes. Presidents with active legislative powers
do not have to impose their will over the congress; they can bargain from a very advantageous
position with legislative majorities that can encompass more than one political party. Agenda powersthat centralize the decision-making process may be the basis for the “efficient secret” of presidential
regimes. Thus, if parliamentary regimes have a better record of survival than presidential regimes, it
is not because they are parliamentary.

22

Table 1: Minority Presidents, Deadlock Situations and Transition Probabilities in Presidential Regimes
by Type of Legislature, Effective Number of Political Parties, Electoral System and Timing of Elections% Minority
Presidents (N)Deadlock
Situations (N)Transition
Probabilities

All

40.22 (726)33.52 (710)

0.0395

Type of Legislature:
Unicameral
Bicameral

36.46 (277)42.54 (449)29.67 (273)35.96 (437)0.04640.0353

Electoral System:
Majority-Plurality
Pure Proportional
Pure Prop. + Mixed

39.04 (146)39.42 (553)
40.52 (580)

36.99 (146)32.96 (540)32.62 (564)0.04820.03780.0372

Effective Number of Parties (ENP):
ENP?2
2<ENP?3
3<ENP?4
4<ENP?5ENP>535.33 (150)33.45 (281)59.69 (129)28.17 (71)50.60 (83)27.33 (150)
31.49 (280)49.22 (128)28.17 (71)32.10 (81)0.04580.02090.07140.04170.0111

Timing of Legislative andPresidential Elections:
Non-Concurrent
Alternate
Non-Conc. + Alternate
Concurrent

45.16 (124)66.92 (133)56.42 (257)
31.34 (469)40.32 (124)47.11 (121)43.67 (245)
28.17 (465)

0.03180.05480.04290.0374

Political Conditions
Minority Presidents
Majority Presidents

0.04620.0293

Minority Governments
Majority Governments

0.03920.0377

Deadlock Situations
No Deadlock Situations

0.03780.0318“Minority Presidents” are the cases in which the party of the president does not control more than 50% of the seats in the legislature in a unicameral system;
or when it does not control more than 50% of the seats in at least one of the chambers in a bicameral system. “Deadlock Situations” are defined as a functionof the number of seats held by the government, by whether presidents can veto legislation, by the requirements for legislative override of the presidentialveto, by the legislative structure, and by whether, in bicameral systems, veto override is by a vote in each house or by a joint session of both houses.
“Transition Probabilities” indicate the probability that a presidential regime will become a dictatorship (the number of transitions away frompresidentialism/the number of cases of presidentialism). “Minority” and “Majority” Governments are defined by the share of legislative seats held by all
the parties that hold cabinet positions. Source: Cheibub (2002).

23

Table 2: Majority and Coalition Governments in Parliamentaryand Presidential Regimes by the Share of Seats Held by theLargest Party in the Legislature

Majority Government:
BOTH

PARLIAMENTARISM

PRESIDENTIALISM

ALL
OVER 50%
UNDER 50%
33.3%-50%
UNDER 33.3%

0.78711.00000.59080.56880.68570.61280.87360.28920.27780.3239

Coalition Government:
BOTH

PARLIAMENTARISM

PRESIDENTIALISM

ALL
OVER 50%
UNDER 50%
33.3%-50%
UNDER 33.3%

0.43140.09200.74430.69490.95710.30340.13480.51220.43060.76060.74740.95980.5531
0.52930.63160.43260.12500.71410.65810.898224

Table 3: Transition Probabilities by the Share of Seats Held by the Largest Party
and the Effective Number of Political Parties
All

Parliamentary

Presidential

Seats Held by the Largest Party:
Over 50%
No Coalition
Coalition

0.02510.02660.01430.01390.01370.01590.04750.05160.0000Under 50%
No Coalition
Coalition

0.02540.03010.01720.01910.02530.01140.04290.04080.0443

33.3%-50%
No Coalition
Coalition

0.02220.03070.01780.01310.02650.00710.05550.04070.0753

Under 33.3 %No Coalition
Coalition

0.01700.02560.01610.01970.00000.02060.02240.04170.0182

Effective Number of Parties:
Less than 2.5
No Coalition
Coalition

0.02670.03080.00000.01670.01920.00000.04800.05320.00002.5-less than 3.5
No Coalition
Coalition

0.01700.02300.01170.01210.01650.00870.03250.02910.0392

3.5-less than 4.5
No Coalition
Coalition

0.02920.01270.03420.00940.00000.01210.0886
0.03850.1132More than or equal to 4.5
No Coalition
Coalition

0.01630.02780.01480.01400.00000.01480.03900.05550.0339Conditions Under Moderate and High Party fragmentation (Effective Parties):
3.5 - 4.5
Majority Government
0.5760
Coalition Government
0.7690Party of Head of Government is the Largest Party
0.6569
Share of Seats of Party of the Head of Government
0.3361
Share of Seats of Largest Party
0.3809
Share of Seats of Second Largest Party
0.2512
Share of Seats of Third Largest Party
0.1600Sum of Seat Share of First, Second and Third Parties 0.7921
0.6417
Sum of Seat Share of Second and Third Parties
0.4112
Source: Cheibub et al (2001).

25

More than 4.5
0.57190.88240.50850.23190.28450.20490.15230.3573

Figure 1: Parliamentary and Presidential Governments by Share of Seast of Party of Chief
Executive
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14

PARL
PRES

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02

5<1
0
10
-<
15
15
-<
20
20
-<
25
25
-<
30
30
-<
35
35
-<
40
40
-<
45
45
-<
50
50
-<
55
55
-<
60
60
-<
65
65
-<
70
70
-<
75
75
-<
80
80
-<
85
85
-<
90
90
-<
95
95
-<
10
0

0
0<5

Frequency

0.12

HSH

26

Literature Cited
Ames, B. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press
Andews WG. 1978. Parliamentary Procedures in France. Legis. Stud. Q. 3:465-506
Baron DP. 1998. Comparative Dynamics of Parliamentary Government. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
92:593-610
Bowler S, Farrell DM, Katz RS, ed. 1999. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government.
Columbus: Ohio State University
Bowler S, Farrell DM, Katz RS. 1999. Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments. See
Bowler et al 1999, pp. 3-22
Carey JM, Shugart, MS. 1994. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering ofElectoral Formulas. Elec. Stud. 14:417-39
Carey JM, Shugart MS, eds. 1998. Executive Decree Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Carey JM., Amorin Neto, O, Shugart, MS. 1997. Appendix: Outlines of Constitutional Powers in
Latin America. See Mainwaring & Shugart, pp. 440-60
Cheibub JA. 1998. Elections and Alternation in Power in Democratic Regimes. Presented at theAnnu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Boston
Cheibub JA. 2002. Minority Governments, Deadlock Situations, and the Survival of Presidential
Democracies. Comparative Political Studies. In press
Cheibub JA, Przeworski A. 1999. Democracy, Elections, and Accountability for Economic
Outcomes. In Democracy and Accountability, eds. A Przeworski, SC Stokes, B Manin, pp.22250. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cheibub JA, Przeworski A, Saiegh S. 2001. Government Coalitions Under Presidentialism andParliamentarism. Presented at Conference on Brazilian Political Institutions in Comparative
Perspective: The Role of Congress in Presidential Systems, Centre for Brazilian Studies, Oxford
University
Cotta M. 1990. The ‘Centrality’of Parliament in a Protracted Democratic Consolidation. In
Parliament and Democratic Consolidation in Southern Europe, eds. U Liebert, M Cotta, pp. 5591. London, Pinter27

Cox GW. 1987. The Efficient Secret. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Di Palma G. 1976. Institutional Rules and Legislative Outcomes in the Italian Parliament. Legis.
Stud Q 1:147-79
Diermeier D, Feddersen TJ. 1998. Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence
Procedure. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 92:611-22
Figueiredo AC, Limongi, F. 1998. Institutional Legacies and Accountability: Executive Decrees
in Brazil and Italy. Presented at the Conference on Confronting Non-Democratic Legacies
During Democratic Deepening: Latin America and Southern Europe. Buenos Aires
Figueiredo AC, Limongi F. 2000. Presidential Power, Legislative Organization and Party
Behavior in the Legislature. Comp. Pol. 32:151-70
Herman V, Mendel F. 1976. Parliaments of the World. A Reference Compendium. London: InterParliamentary Union/Macmillan Press
Herman V, Mendel F. 1986. Parliaments of the World. A Reference Compendium. Berlin and
New York: Inter-Parliamentary Union/De Gruyter
Huber JD. 1996. Rationalizating Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Huber JD. 1996. The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
90:269-82
Jones MP. 1995. Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame,
Ind.: Notre Dame University Press
Kriebhel K. 1987. Why are Congressional Committees Powerful? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 81: 929-35
Kriebhel K. 1988. Spatial Models of Legislative Choice. Leg. Stud. Q. 8:259-319
Kriebhel K. 1992. Constituency Characteristics and Legislative Preferences. Public Choice 76:2137
Kriebhel K. 1996. Institutional and Partisan Sources of Gridlock: A Theory of Divided andUnified Government. J. Theor. Pol. 8:7-40

28

Kriebhel K. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U. S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Limongi F, Figueiredo AC. 1995. Partidos Políticos na Câmara dos Deputados: 1989-1994.
Dados 38:497-543
Linz JJ. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Linz JJ. 1994. Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does It Make a Difference? See Linz &Valenzuela, 1994, pp.3-87
Linz JJ, Valenzuela A, eds. 1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin
America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Lowemberg G, Patterson, SC. 1979. Comparing Legislatures. Boston: Little, Brown
Mainwaring S. 1991. Politicians, Parties, and Electoral Systems: Brazil in Comparative
Perspective. Comp. Pol. 24:21-43
Mainwaring S. 1993. Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination.
Comp. Polit. Stud. 26:198-228
Mainwaring S, Shugart, MS. 1997. Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System. See
Mainwaring & Shugart 1997, pp.394-439
Mainwaring S, Shugart, MS, ed. 1997. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, ed. S
Mainwaring, MS Shugart. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Mayhew D. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press
Medina, LF. 2001. “Legislatures vs. Political Parties: Endogenous Policy with Strategic Voters.”
Unpublished manuscript. Department of Political Science, University of Chicago
Mershon, Carol. 1996. “The Costs of Coalition: Coalition Theories and Italian Governments.”
American Political Science Review 90(3):534-54
Mershon C. 1999. The Costs of Coalition: A Five-Nation Comparison. See Bowler et al 1999,
pp.227-68
O’Donnell G. 1994. “Delegative Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 5:55-69

29

Ozbudun E. 1970. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills:
Sage
Przeworski A, Alvarez M, Cheibub, JA, Limongi F. 2000. Democracy and Development:
Political Institutions and Economic Performance, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Rose R. 1986. British MPs: More Bark Than Bite? In Parliaments and Parliamentarians in
Democratic Politics, ed. Erza N. Suleiman. New York: Holmes & Meier
Sartori G. 1994. Neither Presidentialism nor Parlimentarism. See Linz & Valenzuela 1994, pp.
106-18.
Sartori G. 1997. Comparative Constitutinal Engineering. An Inquiry Into Structures, Incentives
and Outcomes. New York University Press, 1997
Shepsle K. The Changing Texbook Congress In Can the Government Govern? eds. JE Chubb, PE
Patterson, pp. 238-66. Washington, The Brookings Institution
Shepsle K, Weingast, B. 1987. Rejoinder –Why are Congressional Committees Powerful? Am.
Polit. Sci. Rev. 81:935-45
Shugart MS. 1995. The Electoral Cycle and Institutional Sources of Divided Presidential
Government. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89:327-43
Shugart MS, Carey JM. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral
Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Smith A. 1996. Endogenous Election Timing in Majoritarian Parliamentary Systems. Econ. Pol.
8:85-110
Stepan A, Skach C. 1993. Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation:
Parliamentarism Versus Presidentialism. World Politics 46:1-22
Strom K. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Tsebelis, G. 1995. Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism,
Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 25:289-325

30